THE LOCAL PLAN
AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE
COUNTRYSIDE
LILLIAN BURNS
PRESTBURY PARISH COUNCILLOR
CHALC BOARD MEMBER
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
The legal bedrock of the planning system is the
Development Plan.
Planning applications must be decided in
accordance with the Development Plan
‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’
(Planning System, General Principles, DCLG).
The Local Plan is the key component of the
Development Plan, although there are other
planning documents that contribute to it as well.
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
The new National Planning Policy Framework
has replaced a raft of former statutory planning
documents at the national level but it is silent on
many issues and non-specific on others.
It gives limited guidance to principal authorities on
how they should prepare their Development Plans.
The principal authorities have much more freedom
now in the modus operandi they adopt than they
had previously, but they are required to prove to a
planning inspector at an examination in public
that their plans are ‘sound’. They can be
challenged on the ‘soundness’ of their plans.
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
Local Authorities have no direct control over:
 Changes to the planning system including the
timescale for producing Local Plans if they are
not to have to rely on the new National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as a default
 Reductions in government funding, nor
imposed caps on Council tax rises
 Government diktats to make the economy key
 Treasury/ DCLG pressures to build more homes
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
What can Local Authorities do? They can:
• Set precedents in how they interpret the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
because, as yet, there is no case law
• Choose to retain the best policies or partial
policies from Regional Spatial Strategies – which
have not yet been scrapped
• Choose to keep a balance in their Local Plans
between the three tenets of sustainability environment, social and economic issues
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
What can local authorities do (cont’d)? They can:
• Question often made assumption of an automatic link between building/economic growth
• Give due credence to environmental capacity
constraints and resist being panicked into
making decisions they will regret and future
generations will suffer from
• Refuse to let fiscal incentives like the Community
Infrastructure Levy or New Homes Bonus set policy
• Opt for housing figures at the low end of market
predictions - in line with RSS recommendations
NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND PLAN:
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY TO 2021
Distribution, Regional Housing Provision 2003-21
- for subsequent CHESHIRE EAST COUNCIL area
District
Total
Annual
Brownfield
housing
average
land target
Congleton
5,400
300
80%
Crewe & N.
8,100
450
60%
Macclesf’d
7,200
400
80%
3 Districts:
20,700
1,150
73%
NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND PLAN:
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY TO 2021
Worth flagging up here is what the RSS says on
Green Belt: “Overall the general extent of the
Region’s Green Belt will be maintained … After
2011 the presumption will be against exceptional
substantial strategic change to the Green Belt in
Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire or
Merseyside”. (Policy RDF4). Supporting text says:
“It is anticipated that future development in the
North West as set out in this RSS can generally be
accommodated without the need for strategic
reviews of the Green Belt”. (Para. 5.25).
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
NW RSS housing figures extrapolated to 20 years:
FOR CHESHIRE EAST COUNCIL (CEC)
Average: 1,150 pa x 20 = 23,000 (20,700 for 18 yrs.)
In the Local Plan ‘Issues & Options’ paper CEC
published and consulted upon in 2010 that figure
of 23,000 houses was described as ‘Low Growth’.
‘Medium Growth’ figure canvassed was 26,950.
‘High Growth’ figure canvassed was 32,000.
The 11 ‘Town Strategies’ being produced all have
expansionist plans into surrounding countryside.
Main challenge: to keep overall figures to RSS level.
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
Other challenges:Ensuring that, in the rush for growth, CEC does
not lose sight of key legislation and White
Papers which should overlay their work, such as
• The 2008 Climate Change Act & the 2011 White
Paper ‘Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon’ in
addition to international carbon agreements or
• The 2011 Natural Environment White Paper
Nor of the need to keep Supplementary
Planning Documents (SPDs) and a local landscape designation similar to Cheshire County
Council’s Areas of Special County Value(ASCVs)
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
Where does this leave the principal authorities?
They have to comply with the NPPF which:
 Re-inforces the plan-led system
 Upholds the intrinsic value of the undesignated
countryside and says much about Green Belt - but
will only help protect it when a Local Plan is in place
 Provides a definition of sustainable development
 Presumption in favour of sustainable development
 Requires support for sustainable economic growth
 Calls for housing market assessment figures, a 5yr. supply of deliverable housing sites + 5% buffer
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
Cheshire East is coming up to its ‘preferred options’
stage which it is calling its ‘Development Strategy’.
Feeding into that will be the Town Strategies which
are purportedly about the market towns but which
focus heavily on development possibilities around
the towns themselves – often in adjoining parishes.
To help Cheshire East draw these up, in each
case, an ad hoc grouping of stakeholders were
pulled together with input from the Town Councils
where Town Councils exists. However, neither
Crewe nor Macclesfield have Town Councils.
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
The Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy invited feedback on 10 potential development sites around
the town including two in Prestbury Parish and two
adjoining Prestbury Parish but no town centre sites.
This is surprising and disappointing as the town
centre re-development is very much a ‘live’ issue.
It is hugely relevant to parishes round Macclesfield
if plans to redevelop the centre do not include the
provision of housing aimed at re-invigorating the
centre. In fact the current planning application by
Wilson Bowden proposes a net gain of only five
housing units and none above shops.
DRAFT MACCLESFIELD
TOWN CENTRE CONSULTATION
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
The land identified as ‘D’ in the Macclesfield Town
Strategy was intended for the extension of the
Tytherington Business Park but, due to a slow take
up, the proposal is to allow a change of use to
housing for the land between the Silk Road to the
east, Larkwood Way to the west and Tytherington
Drive to the south. About 150 dwellings could be
accommodated here. Prestbury’s S.E. boundary
extends half way along Dumbah Lane, so this site
is just outside it. Prestbury Parish Council said it
approved of this as it would be in keeping with
advice given to Cheshire by the RSS panel who
told them to release excess employment land.
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
The other areas in the Town Strategy of most interest
to people living in NW Macc. & Prestbury are A, B & C.
‘A’ - described as ‘land to the north of Birtles Road’ adjoins Prestbury’s boundary to the south, runs behind
the Leisure Centre and abuts the Rugby Club. It is said
it could deliver around 900 houses.
‘B’ -‘land west of Priory Lane’ - is in the parish, covers
the Rugby Club land and could deliver 300 dwellings’.
‘C’ - ‘land north of Prestbury Road’ - in the parish is the
land south of Willowmead, east of Macclesfield Road
adjoining the Bollin Valley could deliver 360 houses.
All these areas are Green Belt and ‘C’ is an ASCV.
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
Housing numbers and types are generated from a
Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) but,
it should be noted that this provides a ball park
figure to aim for. Principal authorities have some
flexibility as to whether they opt for the high or the
low side of the figures that are produced. The updated SHMA is presently awaited.
Where housing is placed comes partly from
windfall and speculative sites but mainly from the
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
(SHLAA) which is also currently being up-dated
following a recent ‘call for sites’ from CEC.
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
Somehow we have to try to persuade CEC to:
 Go for less aspirational housebuilding figures,
despite the fiscal incentives to do otherwise
 Concentrate on consolidating/ re-invigorating
town centres & providing more housing in them
 Re-allocate employment land where suitable
 Set targets for brownfield re-use and policies
that require sequential land use, brownfield first
 Protect key landscapes with local designations
 Not go for Green Belt review
 Do more to bring empty housing back into use
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
Site ‘C’ runs contrary to the five purposes of
Green Belt identified in paragraph 80 of the NPPF:
• It would not “check the unrestricted sprawl of [a]
large built-up area”
 It would not “prevent neighbouring towns [or in
this case settlements] merging into one another”
 It would not “assist in safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment”
 It would not “preserve the setting and special
character of a historic town” and
 It would not “assist in urban regeneration”
THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRESSURE
ON THE CHESHIRE COUNTRYSIDE
The Town Strategy consultations have now closed
but you are fully entitled to make your thoughts
known to any elected member or officer. The
consultation on the future of the town centre is still
open (headed ‘Regeneration of the Macclesfield
Town Centre’ under ‘Consultations’ on the CEC
website home page: www.cheshireast.gov.uk).
Please take part in it and emphasise the need to
provide more housing in the town centre in order
to revitalise it. And look out for the Development
Strategy stage of the Local Plan consultation
which will probably happen Dec 2012 or Jan 2013