cheshire east local plan evidence base › uploads › green_belt...7 cheshire east local plan...

Cheshire East Local Plan Evidence Base

Green Belt Assessment

September 2013

1 Cheshire East Local Plan Evidence Base: Green Belt Assessment (Sep 2013)

Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Objectives of the Green Belt Assessment ............................................................................... 5

2 Policy Context ................................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.2 History of the Green Belt within Cheshire East ...................................................................... 6

2.3 National Green Belt Policy ...................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Regional Policy ...................................................................................................................... 10

2.5 Local Policy ............................................................................................................................ 11

2.6 Emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Policy ............................................................................. 12

2.7 Policy Context Summary ....................................................................................................... 13

3 Study Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Initial Stages .......................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Assessment of Exceptional Circumstances to Alter Green Belt Boundaries ......................... 14

3.3 Identification of Potential Sustainable Locations for Development ..................................... 14

3.4 Identification of Strategic Parcels of Green Belt Land for Assessment ................................ 15

3.5 Assessment of Strategic Parcels against the Purposes of Green Belt ................................... 17

4 Review of the Exceptional Circumstances to Alter Green Belt Boundaries .................................. 21

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 21

4.2 Housing Need and Growth .................................................................................................... 21

4.3 North Cheshire Green Belt .................................................................................................... 23

4.4 South Cheshire Green Belt .................................................................................................... 37

5 Assessment Results: Strategic Parcels in the Green Belt .............................................................. 38

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 38

5.2 Potential Sustainable Locations for Development ................................................................ 38

5.3 Strategic Parcels of Land for Assessment ............................................................................. 39

5.4 Assessment of Parcels ........................................................................................................... 50

6 Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 73

6.1 Exceptional Circumstances ................................................................................................... 73

6.2 Assessment of Land Within the Green Belt .......................................................................... 73


Appendix A: Assessments of Strategic Parcels ..................................................................................... 75

Alderley Edge .................................................................................................................................... 75

Alsager............................................................................................................................................... 78

Barthomley and Weston ................................................................................................................... 80

Bollington .......................................................................................................................................... 82

Chelford & Nether Alderley .............................................................................................................. 86

Congleton .......................................................................................................................................... 89

Disley ................................................................................................................................................. 93

Handforth .......................................................................................................................................... 98

High Legh ......................................................................................................................................... 100

Knutsford ........................................................................................................................................ 101

Macclesfield .................................................................................................................................... 105

Mere and Bucklow Hill .................................................................................................................... 113

Mobberley ....................................................................................................................................... 116

Poynton ........................................................................................................................................... 119

Prestbury ......................................................................................................................................... 124

Radway Green ................................................................................................................................. 127

Rode Heath ..................................................................................................................................... 128

Siddington ....................................................................................................................................... 130

Wilmslow ........................................................................................................................................ 131


1 Introduction

1.1 Background Cheshire East Council is currently preparing a new Local Plan.

There are a number of documents which collectively comprise the evidence base. These include:

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Planning Research;

Determining The Settlement Hierarchy Background Report;

Green Space Strategy;

Green Infrastructure Framework and Green Infrastructure Action Plan for Crewe;

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (in progress);

Gypsy and Traveller Site Selection Study (in progress);

Infrastructure Study;

Landscape Character Assessment;

Open Spaces Assessment;

New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gaps Study;

Population Projections and Forecasts Background Paper;

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA);

Renewable Energy Policy Study;

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA);

Strategic Open Gaps and New Areas of Green Belt Study (in progress);

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA);

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Housing Needs Survey (in progress);

Viability Testing;

Waste Needs Assessment Report.

This Green Belt Assessment also forms part of the evidence base. The Green Belt Assessment does

not identify areas that are suitable for development and does not recommend whether any site

should or should not be allocated for development. It simply seeks to establish whether exceptional

circumstances exist that would justify the alteration of Green Belt boundaries and also assesses land

against the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

which are:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built –up areas;

To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban

land.

The National Planning Policy Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is

to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green

Belts are their openness and permanence (NPPF para 79). The Green Belt is not a landscape

designation.


1.2 Study Area The Borough of Cheshire East is in the North West of England and is bounded by Cheshire West and

Chester to the west, Warrington and the Manchester conurbation to the north, Shropshire and the

North Staffordshire conurbation of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme to the south and the

Peak District National Park to the east.

Cheshire East is a new Borough, created as part of Local Government Reorganisation in 2009 and it

covers the eastern part of the historic county of Cheshire. It is a large Borough, with many towns,

villages and rural areas. The towns and villages vary greatly in character and face differing issues

with different needs for the future. As such, Cheshire East currently has an emerging sense of place

and identity. The Council is working on a new Local Plan that aims to contribute towards the creation

of a coherent identity for the Borough.

Cheshire East has 40,630 hectares of land designated as Green Belt, located in the northern and

eastern parts of the Borough. These form part of the Green Belts surrounding Greater Manchester

and the Potteries conurbations. The current Green Belt boundary is drawn tightly around

settlements within the Green Belt leaving little space for future development. It is therefore

appropriate to review whether these boundaries should be altered and to assess land in the Green

Belt to determine the extent to which it continues to fulfil a Green Belt function.

In addition, there is an area of locally-defined ‘Green Gap’ primarily designated to prevent Crewe,

Nantwich and a number of surrounding settlements from merging into one another. Assessment of

this Green Gap area is excluded from this Green Belt Assessment and is considered elsewhere in the

Local Plan evidence base.

Figure 1.1: Map showing areas of Green Belt and Green Gap within Cheshire East


For the purpose of this study, any reference to Cheshire East should be taken to mean the

geographical area covered by Cheshire East Borough Council except the part falling within the

boundary of the Peak District National Park. Planning within the National Park is the responsibility of

the Peak District National Park Authority.

1.3 Objectives of the Green Belt Assessment There are two main purposes to the Green Belt Assessment:

1. To assess whether there are exceptional circumstances that could justify alteration of the

existing Green Belt boundary through the preparation of the Local Plan; and

2. To assess land in the Green Belt against the five purposes of Green Belt to identify areas that

perform the strongest Green Belt function and those that perform a lesser Green Belt

function;

The review is strategic in nature and makes recommendations on whether exceptional

circumstances exist to alter existing Green Belt boundaries. It assesses strategic parcels of land,

within the current Green Belt to determine the extent to which each strategic parcel fulfils a Green

Belt function. The review does not make recommendations on specific areas to include or exclude

from the Green Belt.

Decisions on future Green Belt boundaries will be determined through the Local Plan process

following consideration of the results of this Green Belt Assessment alongside all other evidence,

national policy and consultation responses.


2 Policy Context

2.1 Introduction This section sets out the policy context for assessment of the Green Belt and includes information of

the history and purpose of Green Belt within Cheshire East in addition to current local, regional and

national policies relating to the Green Belt.

2.2 History of the Green Belt within Cheshire East Cheshire East has 40,630 hectares of land designated as Green Belt, located in the northern and

eastern parts of the Borough. These form part of the Green Belts surrounding Greater Manchester

and the Potteries conurbations.

2.2.1 Draft Green Belt in Cheshire

Draft Green Belts were defined in Cheshire and the former South Lancashire area in the late 1950s

and early 1960s to:

1. Prevent the outward spread of development from Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the

Potteries; and

2. Restrict the spread of development around the historic town of Chester.

As both the Merseyside conurbation and the historic town of Chester are some distance from what

is now the Borough of Cheshire East, it is considered that the original intent for the area of Green

Belt in Cheshire East was to prevent the outward spread of development from Greater Manchester

and the Potteries.

These original draft Green Belt proposals were submitted to the Ministry of Housing and Local

Government in 1961 and although they were not formally approved at this time, Green Belt control

has been operated in the area concerned ever since submission.

The regional framework was set by the Strategic Plan for the North West published in 1973. This

advocated that development should be concentrated in the Mersey Valley, between the Merseyside

and Greater Manchester conurbations, primarily to assist in the regeneration of these older areas.

To achieve this, there was seen to be a need for a broad Green Belt. This approved regional strategy

therefore supports the concept of Green Belts north and south of the ‘Mersey Belt’.

The draft Green Belts in Cheshire included a substantial area in the north east of the county on the

south side of the Manchester conurbation. This area encompasses land across the northern part of

Macclesfield Borough including land surrounding the settlements of Knutsford, Wilmslow, Alderley

Edge, Poynton and Disley. It also included a large area of land north of the Potteries conurbation up

to Alsager and Congleton.

2.2.2 Extension of the Green Belt in the Cheshire Structure Plan

The first Cheshire County Structure Plan approved in 1979 contained inter alia Policies for Rural

Cheshire. Policy 13.39 related to the definition of the Green Belts and stated:

"13.39 There will be two broad areas of Green Belt in the County:-


Across the north of the county, from the vicinity of Chester, Neston and Ellesmere Port in the west,

extending south of and between Runcorn and Warrington New Towns, north of Northwich, to the

vicinity of Poynton, Disley and Macclesfield in the east; and

In the south of the county between Alsager and Congleton, to link with the North Staffordshire Green

Belt. The extent of the Green Belts is broadly depicted on the Key Diagram, and the boundaries will

be defined precisely in local plans.”

The key diagram indicated that the approved Cheshire Structure Plan extended the earlier draft

Green Belt to include land surrounding the town of Macclesfield as being within the broad extent of

the North Cheshire Green Belt.

The Secretary of State for the Environment approved the First Alteration Cheshire County Structure

Plan on 29th July 1985. Policy H5 related to the definition of the Green Belts, the geographical

distribution of which remained unchanged from the approved County Structure Plan 1979.

2.2.3 Definition of precise Green Belt Boundaries through Local Plans

For the northern part of the Cheshire East Green Belt, precise boundaries were drawn up during the

process of adopting Local Plans during the 1980s:

Macclesfield Local Plan adopted April 1984;

Poynton and Disley Local Plan adopted July 1985;

Knutsford Area Local Plan adopted March 1987;

Wilmslow Local Plan adopted January 1988

At the time of adoption, the Wilmslow Local Plan included two unallocated areas between the urban

limits and the inner boundary of the Green Belt (areas now known as Safeguarded Land) which were

intended to give flexibility and enable further allocations to be made in order to meet housing needs

post 1996. As a result of this flexibility, the Wilmslow Local Plan considered that the boundaries of

the Green Belt were “intended to be permanent for at least 30 years – i.e. up to at least 2017)”.

The other Local Plans did not include any specific policies on unallocated land between the urban

limits and inner boundary of the Green Belt and these plans did not specify a timescale over which

the new Green Belt boundaries were intended to endure.

Within South Cheshire, the then Cheshire County Council adopted the South Cheshire Green Belt

Local Plan in August 1983. As the title suggests, this plan dealt only with the boundaries of the

Green Belt in South Cheshire.

2.2.4 Adjustments to Green Belt in the Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan

The Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan was approved by the Secretary of State for the

Environment on 23rd January 1992. The principal Structure Plan policy in respect of the Green Belt

was Policy ENV3. The broad extent of the Green Belt remained unchanged. However, both the

Examination in Public Panel and the Secretary of State considered the housing provision and the

need to make an alteration to the Green Belt in Macclesfield. Given the development pressure at

that time both to satisfy local need and need from outside the District, the Replacement Structure

Plan approved by the Secretary of State on 23rd January 1992 allowed for an adjustment to the

Green Belt for the most part on the south side of the town of Macclesfield.


2.2.5 Detailed changes to Green Belt boundaries in the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan

The draft Macclesfield Borough Local Plan published in 1994 proposed the release of a large area of

Green Belt to the south and south-west of Macclesfield. Whilst the inspector was satisfied that

exceptional circumstances existed to justify the release of Green Belt, he was not satisfied that they

warranted such a large area of land to be excluded from the Green Belt. Consequently, the area to

the south of the town (now known as the South Macclesfield Development Area) was removed from

the Green Belt but the remaining area to the south west (between Congleton Road, Gawsworth

Road and Chelford Road) remained as Green Belt.

In approving Cheshire’s Replacement Structure Plan (Cheshire 2011) the Secretary of State indicated

that local plans should consider adjustment to the Green Belt around Macclesfield, along the

Staffordshire boundary and as part of a review of Chester’s development needs evaluate the scale,

nature and choices for development of the City.

The Cheshire 2011 Replacement Structure Plan was adopted in 1999 with an extension of the Green

Belt to include Frodsham, Helsby and Lordship Marshes and no reduction in the broad extent of the

Green Belts elsewhere in Cheshire.

2.2.6 Extension to the South Cheshire Green Belt

Policy NE.1 of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan (Adopted 13th November 1997) was

concerned with the extension of the South Cheshire Green Belt:

“The South Cheshire Green Belt will be extended into that part of the Borough of Crewe and

Nantwich which is defined on the proposals map.

Justification: To implement the Secretary of State’s decision that a firm defensible boundary be

identified for the North Staffordshire Green Belt, and although not specifically mentioned in his

decision letter, for the South Cheshire Green Belt as well. To complement green belt designations and

policies in neighbouring authorities as part of the strategy to assist urban regeneration in Crewe and

the Potteries.”

There is no further information recorded on the history of this proposal, but it is believed that prior

to this decision by the Secretary of State, the South Cheshire Green Belt existed only in the former

Congleton Borough. The outer extent of the North Staffordshire Green Belt where it met the former

Borough of Crewe and Nantwich is believed to have been the county boundary. Therefore, it is

considered that South Cheshire Green Belt was extended to include the area around Barthomley and

Weston by the Secretary of State sometime in the 1990s and confirmed in the 1997 Borough of

Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan.

2.2.7 Review of Original Purposes

The main purpose of the Green Belt in Cheshire East was to prevent the outward spread of

development from Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the Potteries. North Cheshire retains a

close socio-economic relationship with the Manchester conurbation as the area of South Cheshire

covered by Green Belt designation does with the Potteries. This original purpose is still considered

to be the key purpose of the Green Belt today, although this needs to be considered in light of

enlarged travel-to-work areas and increased personal mobility. As a result, the ‘outward spread of

development’ is not necessarily confined to the edges of the conurbations and could occur


throughout the Green Belt area. As a result, separation between settlements within the extent of

the Green Belt and maintenance of the open areas between them is also of great importance.

2.3 National Green Belt Policy The national policy framework relating to Green Belts is set out in the National Planning Policy

Framework. One of the core planning principles identified in paragraph 17 is to “take account of the

different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas,

protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the

countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”.

Under the NPPF (para 79), the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by

keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and

their permanence.

Green Belt serves five purposes (as set out in NPPF para 80):

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built –up areas;

To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban

land

NPPF Paragraph 83 relates to Green Belt boundaries. Once established, Green Belt boundaries

should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local

Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their

intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan

period. Consequently, if Green Belt boundary alterations are proposed, it will be necessary to

consider potential development needs well into the future.

When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, local planning authorities should take

account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and consider the

consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside

the Green Belt boundary or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.

Whilst this study does not look at defining new boundaries, it is important to look at the possibilities

for directing development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt (i.e. within Greater

Manchester, the Potteries and urban areas within Cheshire East inset into the Green Belt) when

considering whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify the alteration of Green Belt

boundaries.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be

seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking (para 14).

“For plan-making this means that:

Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development

needs of their area;


Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to

rapid change, unless:

o Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

o Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”

The footnote to this paragraph in the NPPF explicitly notes that land designated as Green Belt can be

considered as a ‘specific policy to indicate development can be restricted’. This is also an important

factor when considering whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify the alteration of

Green Belt boundaries.

The NPPF (para 47) is clear that local planning authorities should look to significantly boost the

supply of housing. Having considered the evidence base, the Local Plan should meet the full,

objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is

consistent with the policies set out in the NPPF.

Although this study does not look at potential changes to the Green Belt boundary, it is useful to

consider the requirements for defining boundaries, particularly in relation to the requirements for

safeguarded land as set out in NPPF para 85:

“When defining boundaries, local planning authorities should:

ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for

sustainable development;

not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open;

where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area

and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond

the plan period;

make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time.

Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be

granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development;

satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the

development plan period; and

define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to

be permanent.”

Villages should only be included in the Green Belt if it is necessary to restrict development primarily

because of the important contribution that the open character of the village makes to the openness

of the Green Belt.

2.4 Regional Policy The North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy and remaining Cheshire Structure Plan policies

were revoked on 20th May 2013 by The Regional Strategy for the North West (Revocation) Order

2013. Consequently, the Regional Spatial Strategy is no longer part of the statutory development

plan for Cheshire East.


Whilst the Regional Spatial Strategy has been abolished, it is useful to briefly consider what

conclusions were drawn from its evidence base at the time. Policy RDF4 of the NWRSS related

specifically to Green Belts. Overall, the general extent of the Region’s Green Belt will be maintained

(over the plan period to 2021). Within Cheshire, there is no need for any exceptional substantial

strategic change to Green Belt boundaries before 2011, and a presumption against exceptional

strategic change after 2011. Where exceptional strategic change is necessary, policy RDF4 required

that the Regional Planning Body (now defunct) together with relevant stakeholder should investigate

the need for change and options for implementation. Any other local detailed boundary changes

should be examined by the Local Development Framework process (now the Local Plan process).

The NWRSS did not envisage any exceptional substantial change would be required to the Green Belt

in the North West to 2021 but did recognise that other, more location specific detailed boundary

changes may be required to meet exceptional circumstances.

2.5 Local Policy Local policy relating to Green Belt consists of saved policies from:

Macclesfield Borough Local Plan (adopted January 2004);

Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review (adopted January 2005); and

Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan (adopted February 2005)

2.5.1 Macclesfield Borough Local Plan (adopted January 2004)

The Plan states that “the object of planning policy in a Green Belt is to keep land open and keep

levels of activity at a minimum. Thus it is the intention that a Green Belt shall have a rural character

and restrictions on building are severe”.

The Macclesfield Borough Local Plan covered the period to 2011, although a number of policies have

been ‘saved’ in perpetuity by Direction from the Secretary of State.

These include policy GC1 ‘Green Belt – New Buildings’ which prevents the construction of new

buildings in the Green Belt, except under very special circumstances or for one of the specified

purposes. These purposes include:

Limited infilling within the settlements of Gawsworth, Henbury, Lyme Green and Sutton

provided that the development is in scale and character with the settlement in question; and

Limited affordable housing for local community needs.

Policy GC4 ‘Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt’ allows for limited infilling and redevelopment

at a number of identified major developed sites that are washed over by the Green Belt. Other

Green Belt policies in the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan were not saved as they were considered

to be a repeat of national policy.

2.5.2 Congleton Borough Plan First Review (adopted January 2005)

Within the Congleton Local Plan, the defined purpose of Green Belt is “to check the unrestrained

growth of the built-up area and to safeguard the countryside against further encroachment”.


The Plan covered the period up to 2011 but a number of its policies have also been saved under a

Direction from the Secretary of State. Policy PS7 ‘Green Belt’ prevents development within the

Green Belt unless for one of the specified purposes which include:

New dwellings in accordance with policy H6;

Controlled infilling in Astbury, Lawton Gate, Red Bull and The Bank;

Limited affordable housing for local needs;

Limited types of employment development;

Re-use of existing rural buildings.

Policy E6 relates to employment development in the Green Belt and policy H6 allows for agricultural

workers dwellings, replacement dwellings, conversion of existing buildings and limited affordable

housing. Policy H16 addresses extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt, H17 with extensions to

residential curtilage and policy S9 limits new shopping development in the Green Belt to farm shops

that assist with rural diversification and local shops within settlements where infill is acceptable.

2.5.3 Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan (adopted February

2005)

This Plan seeks no loss of Green Belt land to built development except in very special circumstances.

It notes that there is a need for very strict protection of the openness of land included within the

Green Belt in order to achieve the land use objectives of the Green Belt. At the same time, it does

recognise that policy must allow for appropriate new uses and development including the need for

farmers and others to diversify their enterprises.

As with the other relevant Local Plans, the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan covers the

period to 2011, although a number of its policies have also been saved under a Direction from the

Secretary of State including its Green Belt policy.

Policy NE.1 seeks to prevent inappropriate development in the Green Belt except in very special

circumstances. It also allows for the re-use of buildings within the Green Belt subject to a number of

criteria. In addition, policy RES.11 ensures that extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt must be

subordinate to the original building and policy RES.13 states that new sites for Gypsies and Travellers

should not be located in the Green Belt.

2.6 Emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Policy Cheshire East Council is working to produce a Core Strategy as part of its Local Plan. There have

already been consultations on issues and options; a ‘place-shaping’ consultation looking at local

issues in each of the larger towns; rural issues; minerals issues; town strategies to help identify local

priorities; and consultation on a overall development strategy and policy principles including a

separate consultation on some additional sites that have been submitted through the consultation

process so far.

Emerging policy relating to the Green Belt in Cheshire East is set out in the Development Strategy

and Policy Principles documents. One of the identified objectives for the new Local Plan is to

establish Green Belt boundaries that take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of

development and that address longer term development needs stretching beyond the plan period.


To achieve sustainable development in the future, it is considered that some development may be

necessary within the Green Belt. To avoid the need for further alterations to the Green Belt

boundary in the future, the Local Plan will also need to identify areas of land to remove from the

Green Belt and ‘safeguard’. This safeguarded land may be required to meet the longer term

development needs beyond the end of the plan period (2030). The NPPF (para 85) is clear that

safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time and can only be allocated as

part of a Local Plan review.

The Cheshire East emerging policy envisages that, other than detailed boundary changes to

accommodate new development, the general extent of the existing Green Belt will be maintained

and it also advocates consideration of a new area of Green Belt to preserve the setting and special

character of the historic town of Nantwich and to prevent it merging with Crewe and surrounding

villages. The potential for designating a new Green Belt does not form part of this review of the

existing Green Belt and will be considered separately.

This Green Belt study will form part of the evidence base for the Core Strategy and together with

other evidence documents (such as those relating to the overall development requirements for the

area, landscape assessment, constraints mapping and sustainability appraisals), the results of all the

consultation exercises carried out, and national policy and guidance, will inform decisions on

whether or not it is appropriate to release sites from the Green Belt, and if so, which sites would be

more appropriate than others.

2.7 Policy Context Summary The broad extent of Green Belt within Cheshire East was first drafted in the late 1950s and early

1960s to prevent the outward spread of development from Greater Manchester, Merseyside and

the Potteries. This original purpose is still considered key, but maintaining the separation between

settlements within the extent of the Green Belt is also important.

Detailed boundaries were defined throughout the 1980s and the south Cheshire Green Belt

extended in the early 1990s and there is not considered to be a need for a strategic review of the

general extent of the Green Belt (although proposals for a new area of Green Belt in South Cheshire

will be considered separately within the Local Plan evidence base).

The NPPF sets out the five purposes of Green Belts and these purposes will form the basis of the

assessments to determine which areas fulfil the strongest Green belt function and which areas serve

a lesser Green Belt function.


3 Study Methodology This section sets out the methodology used to carry out the Green Belt Assessment.

3.1 Initial Stages To begin the review, an assessment of local, regional and national policies relevant to the Green Belt

was carried out, alongside a consideration of the history of the Green Belt in Cheshire including the

original reasons for designating Green Belt locally.

3.2 Assessment of Exceptional Circumstances to Alter Green Belt

Boundaries The NPPF (para 14) establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-

making, this means that:

“Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid

change, unless:

Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,

when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or

Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”

In addition, NPPF (para 83) requires that Green Belt boundaries are only altered in exceptional

circumstances, through the preparation of the Local Plan.

A full assessment of the evidence base has been carried out to determine:

a) Whether it is possible to meet the objectively assessed needs without incursions into the

Green Belt; and

b) If not, whether the requirement to meet the objectively assessed needs has the potential to

be considered as exceptional circumstances to justify alterations to the Green Belt

boundary.

Evidence base documents providing information on development needs as well as land supply and

considered in this assessment include:

Strategic Housing Market Assessment

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

Employment Land Review

Cheshire East Retail Study

Background Paper – Population Projections and Forecasts

Department for Communities and Local Government Household Projections

Data available from the 2011 Census

3.3 Identification of Potential Sustainable Locations for Development The Green Belt in Cheshire East extends to over 400 square kilometres. As such, it was important to

reduce the size of the study area and discount areas where change is unlikely. Areas for further

investigation were selected for their potential to provide future sustainable locations for

development.


The results of the Council's ‘Determining the Settlement Hierarchy’ study were used to determine

the most sustainable settlements within Cheshire East. Green Belt areas adjacent to Principal

Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres could potentially be sustainable locations for

development.

In addition, there was a need to consider whether any other areas could deliver sustainable new

settlements or urban extensions. Areas were identified where there are potential significant

development pressures, of a scale that could deliver a sufficient level of development to provide and

support a comprehensive range of facilities and services for their future residents and therefore be

considered sustainable settlements. Areas of potential significant development pressure were

defined as areas with significant clusters of sites submitted to the Council's Strategic Housing Land

Availability Assessment and areas with proposed and alternative strategic sites set out in the

Council's Development Strategy.

3.4 Identification of Strategic Parcels of Green Belt Land for Assessment Having determined the broad areas within which to assess the extent to which land fulfils the five

purposes of Green Belt, it was necessary to identify strategic parcels of land within these areas for

assessment.

Firstly, a mapping exercise was carried out to identify key constraints that would automatically rule

out development. Although this review is clear that it does not consider whether any strategic

parcel or any site is suitable for development, it was considered appropriate to exclude areas where

it is certain that development would be unacceptable. These key constraints mapped are:

European designations: Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)

and Ramsar Sites;

National designations: National Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National

Nature Reserves (NNRs)

These constraints are shown in Figure 3.1.


Figure 3.1: European and National Designations

Other constraints (such as flood risk, landscape character etc) may well preclude development in

other areas, but given the strategic nature of this review, it cannot be certain that these constraints

could not be overcome and further, more detailed work would be required in these areas if sites

were proposed to be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for development.

Following the mapping of constraints, an initial sieving process was undertaken so that strategic

parcels of land were not considered:


Within areas, or close to areas, that have European designations such as Special Protection

Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Ramsar sites; and

Within areas that have national designations such as National Parks, Sites of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs).

Following this initial sieving process, strategic parcels were identified for further, more detailed

assessment. Green Belt parcels were identified by:

• Ensuring strategic parcel boundaries do not cross significant barriers such as motorways,

rail lines, noteworthy watercourses or significant areas of woodland.

• Considering other constraints to their development such as topography, flood risk and

nature conservation designations.

• Making sure strategic parcels are of consistently similar character and land use for Green

Belt purposes

Aerial photography, Ordnance Survey maps and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) were used

to identify these parcels of land. At the end of the process each of the parcels were mapped and

assigned a unique reference number.

The boundaries of these parcels were given careful consideration so that they could provide a robust

and defensible boundary over time. The integrity of the Green Belt can be seriously compromised

where Green Belt boundaries are constantly changing. Furthermore, public confidence in Green Belt

policies is very largely dependent on their certainty and their longevity.

Strong Boundaries Moderate – Weak Boundaries

Motorway Private road

Main road Disused railway lines

Railway line (in use) Brooks and culverted watercourses

Rivers, streams and canals Non protected woodlands, trees and hedges

Protected woodland Field boundaries

Protected hedges Open space boundaries

Residential, employment or other development with strong established boundaries

Residential, employment or other development with weak or intermediate established boundaries

Prominent topography Power lines

Public footpath Figure 3.2: Robust and Defensible Green Belt Boundaries

For completeness, two areas of land designated as 'Safeguarded Land', that lie between the Green

Belt and urban area in Wilmslow and Handforth were also included in the study despite not

currently being in the Green Belt.

3.5 Assessment of Strategic Parcels against the Purposes of Green Belt A key objective of the review was to assess the strategic Green Belt parcels in the context of the

National Planning Policy Framework and the five purposes of the Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework (para. 80) identifies five purposes of the Green Belt:


• To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built –up areas;

• To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

• To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

• To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

• To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban

land.

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently

open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence (NPPF para

79).

“Keeping land permanently open” is therefore a key consideration in the overall assessment of each

site, as openness is so critical to the Green Belt. The NPPF does not further define the five purposes

or set out how they should be assessed, although it is clear that the Framework does not give any

particular weighting to the different purposes.

The following table sets out the broad criteria that have been used in the assessment of how each

strategic parcel fulfils the five Green Belt purposes.

Green Belt Purpose (as set out in NPPF)

Suggested broad criteria used in review

1) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built –up areas

What role does the strategic parcel play in preventing ribbon development and non compact development?

2) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another

What role does the strategic parcel play in preventing towns from merging and narrowing the gap between them? Would a reduction in the gap between the towns compromise the openness of the Green Belt land? What is the width of the gap?

3) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

Are there clear strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term? Are there already significant urbanising influences? Has there already been encroachment by built development?

4) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

This purpose has been ‘screened out’ as the original reasons for designating the Cheshire Green Belt were to prevent the outward spread of development from the adjacent conurbations and to restrict the spread of development around the historic town of Chester (which is outside of the study area). It is considered (at least in terms of Green Belt policy) that none of the settlements in the study area are classed as historic towns.

5) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

This purpose has also been ‘screened out’ as it could be applied equally to all land in the Green Belt.

Figure 3.3: Broad Assessment Criteria for Strategic Parcels within the Green Belt


It is considered that purpose number 5 can be screened out of the assessment as it could be applied

equally to all land in the Green Belt. Given that Chester (outside of the study area) is the only

historic town specifically mentioned at the time of designating the Cheshire Green Belt, purpose

number 4 can also be screened out from the assessment.

The difference between sprawl and encroachment is not always clear. The Tewkesbury, Gloucester

and Cheltenham Green Belt Assessment used the dictionary definitions of these terms to support

their assessment criteria and these are repeated here.

Sprawl is defined as “… the straggling expansion of an urban or industrial area, irregular or

straggling form, spread out over a large area in an untidy or irregular way”;

Encroachment is defined as “intrude, advance gradually beyond an acceptable or established

limit”.

When assessing strategic parcels of land against the purpose of Green Belt, it was considered

appropriate to use the criteria set out in Table 3.2 supported by these definitions. When revising

Green Belt boundaries, the NPPF requires that local planning authorities should define boundaries

clearly, using physical feature that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.

When assessing strategic parcels of land, consideration was also given to other factors including:

• Existing land use;

• Proximity and relationship to the built-up area;

• Degree of openness / enclosure;

• Distance and visual connection to historic urban centres / key urban areas; and

• Relationship with the countryside

For each strategic parcel, the results of the assessment were recorded in a matrix. An individual

assessment against each of the purposes of Green Belt was made along with a categorisation:

• Strategic parcel makes a major contribution to Green Belt purposes;

• Strategic parcel makes a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes;

• Strategic parcel makes a contribution to Green Belt purposes;

In addition to this individual assessment against each purpose, an overall assessment (using the

categories above) and written evaluation using professional judgement was made. In some cases, a

combination of the findings on each purpose may be used to inform the overall evaluation and in

other cases there may be one overriding purpose that is deemed critical to the overall assessment.

The NPPF identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by

keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their

openness and permanence. Despite this, it does not identify any of the five purposes as being more

important than the others, and in the absence of any clear guidance or consistent examples of good

practice in this area, it was not considered appropriate for this review to weight the purposes as

some other studies have done.

In Cheshire, the primary reasons for defining the Green Belt are recorded to be:


1. To prevent the outward spread of development from Greater Manchester, Merseyside

and the Potteries; and

2. To restrict the spread of development around the historic town of Chester.

The professional judgement applied to the assessments allows for consideration of this primary

purpose, and in some cases, for example where the strategic parcel is part of a narrow gap between

the outer edge of one of the conurbations and the edge of a Cheshire settlement, this is considered

to be an overriding factor in the overall assessment.

The purpose of the assessments is not to make recommendations on the location of potential Green

Belt release, but rather they serve to identify those areas where the purposes of Green Belt are

weaker and boundaries for the long-term might merit redefinition should the land be required

during the next plan period (to 2030) or in the longer term.

Potential release of sites within the identified strategic parcels will be considered through the Local

Plan process in the context of a range of planning, sustainability and landscape issues having been

informed by the Local Plan evidence base as a whole, not just the Green Belt Assessment.


4 Review of the Exceptional Circumstances to Alter Green Belt

Boundaries

4.1 Introduction Within Cheshire East, there are significant identified needs for market and affordable housing, as

well as for new employment land provision. It is considered that in the north of the Borough, these

needs cannot be met from towns and villages inset within the Green Belt boundary, or from urban

areas inside the Green Belt boundary. Directing additional development to meet these needs to

locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary would lead to unsustainable patterns of

development and would not provide sufficient new development in the areas of need.

The requirements to allocate sufficient land for the development of market and affordable housing,

and for employment development to meet the identified needs in the north of the Borough are

considered to constitute exceptional circumstances that justify the alteration of Green Belt

boundaries through the preparation of the Local Plan.

4.2 Housing Need and Growth The need for growth in Cheshire East is set out throughout the Local Plan evidence base and within

the Council’s Development Strategy.

Growth in Cheshire East is both necessary and beneficial for the following reasons:

To increase the number of jobs

To make Cheshire East attractive for inward investment

Recognition of Cheshire East as a good place to live with a high quality of life where people

are attracted to live and work

To deliver key regeneration projects

Construction as an important part of the economy, creating jobs and boosting GDP

To have a workforce that can support an ageing population

To enable our own young people to stay in Cheshire East, substantial new housing is needed

to meet local needs

A strong economy offering sustainable growth is essential in maintaining the Borough’s prosperity in

a fast changing world. However it is important that economic growth is within environmental limits

and improves the social conditions.

An adequate supply of housing plays a fundamental role in building a successful economy. Despite

the current economic recession, evidence shows that demand for housing over the next twenty

years will outstrip supply unless we substantially increase the amount of new housing provided

through the Local Plan; in particular housing that meets local needs and is affordable. One of the

core planning principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (para 19) is that the

planning system should: 'proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver

the homes, businesses and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country

needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and

other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans

should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a


clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking into

account the needs of the residential and business communities'.

The extent to which a location provides access to markets and a skilled workforce will impact on

attracting inward investment into an area. Individuals make decisions on where they wish to live

taking into account the quality of housing and the environment. Consequently the availability of

good housing and high quality environments influence decisions about business location, investment

and growth.

If we do not provide sufficient housing, economic growth will be constrained because new

businesses will decide not to locate in Cheshire East, whilst house prices will increase, exacerbating

the affordability problem. In areas of high cost housing, employers have particular difficulty in

recruiting to lower paid posts which restricts economic growth. The consequences may be significant

in personal and environmental terms with lower paid workers being forced to live in areas of

cheaper housing outside Cheshire East but travelling long distances into the Borough to work.

Housing development also makes an important contribution to the local economy in its own right. It

creates employment opportunities for construction workers and also generates increased retail

expenditure in the local community. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has estimated

that if new housebuilding across the UK were to rise to 300,000 annually by 2015 (95,000 new

houses were built in 2010), it would add some 201,000 extra permanent jobs in construction and

contribute £75 billion to the UK's Gross Domestic Product.

In addition to the economic benefits of housing growth, there are significant social reasons to

provide new housing. These reflect the particular local need of Cheshire East and include:

The population of Cheshire East has grown by 5.2% to 370,100 people between 2001 and

2011 and a similar rate of growth is forecast over the next twenty years.

The number of households is expected to increase by 24% from 154,000 to 191,000 by 2030

(Cheshire East Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2010).

Office for National Statistics 2010 projections show that there will be a requirement in

Cheshire East for 1,600 new dwellings every year.

The demand for affordable housing. Across Cheshire East there is an identified need for

1,243 affordable homes each year (Cheshire East Strategic Housing Market Assessment,

2010).

The projected and substantial increase in residents over the age of 65 means that there will

be an increased demand for particular types of housing (such as bungalows) to the extent

that demand will outstrip supply.

The social housing waiting list shows that across Cheshire East 10,952 people have applied

for social housing (Housing Waiting List, May 2012). Of these, 9,889 have local connection in

Cheshire East.

The need to increase the proportion of the population of working age through in-migration

to ensure we have a viable working population.

To ensure the managed release of sufficient land for development to meet the objectively

assessed needs for market and affordable housing, in accordance with the requirements of

the National Planning Policy Framework.


Further evidence on the need for new housing is set out elsewhere in the Local Plan evidence base.

Having considered the evidence, the Development Strategy proposes that a minimum of 27,000

homes be provided between 2010 and 2030, plus a minimum of 300ha of land for business, general

industry and storage and distribution uses.

4.3 North Cheshire Green Belt The Green Belt in the north of the Borough is drawn very tightly around existing settlements. With

the exception of two areas of safeguarded land (total circa 22ha) in the Wilmslow and Handforth

area, there is very little room for expansion of settlements without incursions into the Green Belt.

The Green Belt has been a very successful instrument in limiting the expansion of urban areas and

encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. In addition, many of the settlements do

not have a significant industrial heritage and are not blighted by large areas of derelict industrial

land. Consequently, there are not sufficient genuinely deliverable sites to deliver enough market

and affordable housing to meet the identified housing needs.

4.3.1 Housing Need

The north of Borough is recognised as a dynamic, successful and desirable area with high demand

for new housing and at present has a significant level of pent-up demand; The 2010 Strategic

Housing Market Assessment shows that open market housing in Cheshire East is relatively

unaffordable. When considering the ratio of lower-quartile incomes to lower-quartile house prices,

Cheshire East was the 8th least affordable Borough in the North West. The proportion of households

in Cheshire East that could afford the lower quartile (LQ) house price was 35.8% (Source: Land

Registry 2009 Household Survey). Within the towns and villages inset into the North Cheshire Green

Belt, this figure ranged from 10.0% in Prestbury to 47.5% in Wilmslow and Alderley Edge.

Sub-area Lower Quartile

Median Income required to afford LQ Price

Income required to afford median price

% households who could afford LQ price

% households who could afford median price

Prestbury £290,000 £450,000 £82,857 £128,571 10.0% 7.9%

Poynton £180,000 £231,000 £51,429 £66,000 15.6% 6.9%

Macclesfield Rural

£183,000 £249,972 £52,286 £71,421 17.0% 6.1%

Knutsford Town

£173,690 £240,000 £49,626 £68,571 18.8% 6.4%

Knutsford Rural

£200,000 £290,500 £57,143 £83,000 24.7% 6.2%

Disley £141,000 £188,000 £40,286 £53,714 35.5% 14.4%

Macclesfield and Bollington

£115,000 £150,000 £32,857 £42,857 38.6% 24.8%

Wilmslow and Alderley Edge

£160,000 £240,000 £45,714 £68,571 47.5% 8.8%

Figure 4.1: Housing Affordability. Source: Land Registry 2009 Household Survey

The SHMA shows an overall annual requirement for 2,753 open market dwellings and 1,243

affordable dwellings across Cheshire East. This includes a shortfall of 555 affordable dwellings per

annum in the former Macclesfield District. The SHMA considers general market supply and demand

in each of the identified sub-areas (Disley, Knutsford Rural, Knutsford Town, Macclesfield and

Bollington; Macclesfield Rural; Poynton; Prestbury; and Wilmslow and Alderley Edge). Within these


sub-areas, demand exceeds supply for all sizes of property in all of the sub-areas, except for two-

bedroom properties in Macclesfield and Bollington, and one and four-bedroom properties in

Prestbury. Demand generally exceeds supply for each type of property with some exceptions as

shown in Figure 4.2 below. It is notable that demand exceeds supply for all types of property in

Disley, Knutsford Town, Poynton and Wilmslow and Alderley Edge.

Figure 4.2: Review of General Market Housing Supply and Demand. Source: Cheshire East SHMA 2010

The number of households in need varies across the area and ranges from 2.4% (50 households) in

Prestbury to 8.0% (158 households) in Disley.

Sub-area No. households in need Total no. households % households in need

Disley 158 1,966 8.0%

Knutsford Rural 271 5,410 5.0%

Knutsford Town 456 5,851 7.8%

Macclesfield & Bollington 1,278 26,015 4.9%

Macclesfield Rural 153 4,374 3.5%

Poynton 357 6,047 5.9%

Prestbury 50 2,065 2.4%

Wilmslow and Alderley Edge 822 16,071 5.1%

Figure 4.3: Households in need by sub-area. Source: 2009 Household Survey / 2010 SHMA

This need can be for a variety of reasons as shown in Figure 4.4 below.

Category Factor

Homeless households or with insecure tenure

N1 Under notice, real threat of notice or lease coming to an end

N2 Too expensive, and in receipt of housing benefit or in arrears due to expense

Mismatch of housing need and dwellings

N3 Overcrowded according to the ‘bedroom standard’ model

N4 Too difficult to maintain

N5 Couples, people with children and single adults over 25 sharing a kitchen bathroom or WC with another household

N6 Household containing people with mobility impairment or other special needs living in unsuitable accommodation

Dwelling amenities and condition

N7 Lacks a bathroom, kitchen or inside WC and household does not have resource to make fit

N8 Subject to major disrepair or unfitness and household does not have resource to make fit

Social needs N9 Harassment or threats of harassment from neighbours or others living in the vicinity which cannot be resolved except through a move

Figure 4.4: Reasons for housing need


Growth of the towns in the north of Cheshire East is constrained by very tightly drawn Green Belt

boundaries and the whole area was previously subject to a restrictive housing policy prior to the

introduction of the Regional Spatial Strategy in 2008 so there has been a very limited overall

increase in the housing stock in the recent past.

There is an increasing need for Cheshire East’s northern towns to provide new housing stock.

Although the population is increasing, it is also ageing. Without intervention, the number of people

of working age is predicted to reduce despite the population increasing overall. This clearly has the

potential for adverse implications for the local economy and could lead to a decline in town centres

and result in a number of local services and facilities becoming unviable. Consequently, there is an

urgent need to retain and attract young people and families to support the local economy, facilities

and services. A lack of suitable and affordable housing is likely to be a severe barrier to achieving this

aim and without suitable new housing stock the population will age faster and proportion of working

age people will decline further.

A lack of new stock is likely to drive house prices higher due to the constrained supply. Coupled with

a lower proportion of working age people, local employers may struggle to recruit staff with the

necessary skills and experience. People in lower paid jobs may need to live elsewhere and commute

into the area for work due to the lack of affordable and suitable housing. This will increase the need

to travel, increasing congestion and pollution.

Further evidence to support the need for new housing is set out elsewhere in the Local Plan

evidence base.

4.3.2 Sequential Assessment of Development Locations

As set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, local

planning authorities should “take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of

development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling

development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset

within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary”.

Given the identified need for development within the north of the Borough, the most sustainable

locations for new development are likely to be the existing towns and villages inset within the Green

Belt. If development needs cannot be fully met in these towns and villages, it will be necessary to

consider the sustainability implications of meeting those development needs in the urban area

inside the Green Belt boundary (i.e. within Greater Manchester) or meeting those needs in locations

beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.

4.3.3 Channelling Development towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt

boundary

The first priority for meeting development needs in the north of the Borough should be to meet

those needs within the existing towns and villages inset within the Green Belt boundary. All of the

towns and some of the villages are able to meet some of their own development needs in this way,

primarily through the recycling of land within the urban area.

The following section considers the genuinely deliverable sites that are likely to be available for

development during the Plan period and will assist in meeting development needs. It is important to


consider the deliverability of sites in this assessment, as sites that are suitable but for whatever

reason are not likely to come forwards for development during the plan period should not be

counted as making a contribution to meeting the development needs of the area.

In addition, it is proposed that the Plan will cover a 20 year period with a base date of 1st April 2010.

It is therefore appropriate to consider development that has already taken place since this base

date. Figures for the number of dwellings completed and the number with planning permission in

the following sections are as of 1st April 2013.

The study also considers whether there is any other capacity within the urban areas to

accommodate development. The Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

considers sites within the urban areas that are able to make a contribution to housing development.

The SHLAA places all sites into one of the following categories:

Deliverable. The definition of ‘deliverable’ is that the site is available now, offers a suitable

location for housing development now and there is a reasonable prospect that housing will

be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that the development of the site is

viable;

Developable. The definition of ‘developable’ is that a site is in a suitable location for housing

development and there should be a reasonable prospect that it will be available for

development and could be viably developed at a specific point in time. Inclusion within the

‘developable’ category does not necessarily mean that a site will move into the ‘deliverable’

category or that it will come forward for development. This may require a change in

availability of the site; changes to existing policy covering the site; or changes to the current

viability of the scheme (for example improved technologies or improvements to the housing

market);

Not currently developable. The definition of ‘not currently developable’ is where it is not

known when a site could be developed. This may be, for example, because one of the

constraints to development is severe, and it is not known if or when it might be overcome.

For the purposes of this Green Belt Assessment, it can be considered that sites in the ‘deliverable’

and ‘developable’ categories could reasonably be assumed to be capable of making a contribution to

providing housing over the Plan period.

Therefore, the total amount of brownfield land identified by the SHLAA in the deliverable and

developable categories is considered by town in the sections below. Sites with planning permission

and those considered individually below have been removed from the SHLAA figures to avoid

double-counting.

Macclesfield

Of all the towns inset within the North Cheshire Green Belt, Macclesfield has the greatest availability

of land in its urban area that may be available for development. However, as the largest settlement

in the north of the Borough, it also has the greatest development needs. Given its industrial

heritage, there are some brownfield sites in the urban area that are able to offer a contribution to

meeting the town’s development needs. However, there are a number of other sites that may be

suitable for redevelopment, but where there is insufficient evidence that these sites will come


forwards for development. These include sites such as the Barracks Mill site on Black Lane, where

the constraints to development, costs in dealing with contamination and developer interest for retail

purposes mean that the site can not be considered as genuinely available for housing development.

There are also a number of other smaller, slightly run-down and sometimes underused commercial /

industrial areas. Whilst some of these will come forwards for development during the Plan period,

others remain in active economic use and provide a good source of cheap accommodation for local

companies.

Since 2010, there have been 365 net additional dwellings completed in Macclesfield and there are

559 which either have some form of planning permission, or where the Council is minded to grant

permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement.

The South Macclesfield Development Area is a large, predominantly greenfield site that is currently

allocated for employment and retail uses. The Development Strategy proposes a residential-led

mixed-use scheme on this site and current indications are that it could accommodate around 900

new dwellings. In addition, there could be capacity for up to 377 new dwellings on other brownfield

SHLAA sites. This gives a total capacity in Macclesfield for an estimated 2,201 new dwellings.

Handforth

There are few opportunities for large scale redevelopment of brownfield sites for housing within

Handforth but there are a limited number of smaller sites that can be considered. In addition, there

is an area of safeguarded land that could potentially accommodate new housing development.

Consideration was also given to undeveloped allocated employment sites within the Handforth Dean

/ Stanley Green area. There is development interest in this area for commercial / employment uses

and it is not certain that a satisfactory residential environment could be created within the existing

industrial estate, so this area is considered unlikely to come forwards for housing development

within the Plan period.

There is also a major redevelopment site a short distance away at Woodford Aerodrome in the

neighbouring Stockport Metropolitan Borough (considered in Poynton section below) but this does

not make a contribution to meeting housing needs in Cheshire East.

Since 2010, there have been 96 net additional dwellings completed in Handforth and there are 24

with planning permission.

There is an area of safeguarded land at Handforth Hall that lies between the urban edge and the

inner boundary of the Green Belt which could potentially accommodate up to around 250 new

dwellings. In addition, there could be capacity for 9 new dwellings on other brownfield SHLAA sites.

This gives a total capacity in Handforth for an estimated 379 new dwellings.

Knutsford

In common with a number of towns in north Cheshire, Knutsford does not have a significant

industrial legacy of brownfield land and the availability of brownfield sites within the urban area is

extremely limited.


Since 2010, there have been 15 net additional dwelling completed in Knutsford and there are 29

with planning permission.

There is an undeveloped area of allocated employment land to the rear of Parkgate Industrial Estate

that may or may not be suitable for housing development. Theoretically, this site could

accommodate up to around 350 new dwellings. In addition, there could be capacity for up to 58

new dwellings on other brownfield SHLAA sites.

This gives a total capacity in Knutsford for an estimated 452 new dwellings.

Poynton

Of all the major settlements, it could be argued that Poynton has the most constrained supply of

land for development. There are few significant redevelopment opportunities within the town.

There is a major redevelopment site a short distance away at Woodford Aerodrome in the

neighbouring Stockport Metropolitan Borough. Consideration was given to whether local

development needs could be met here. Whilst in practice this may prove to be the case given its

close proximity to Poynton, Stockport Council confirm that this site is required to meet housing

needs in their own Borough. Therefore, making an allowance for this site to meet needs from within

Cheshire East would lead to double-counting of its contribution to development needs overall.

Since 2010, the number of new dwellings completed represents a net loss of 3 dwellings (i.e. more

dwellings have been demolished than have been built in their place). Planning permission exists for

just 9 new dwellings. In addition, there could be capacity for up to 70 new dwellings on other

brownfield SHLAA sites.

This gives a total capacity in Poynton for an estimated 76 new dwellings.

Wilmslow

High demand for housing in Wilmslow and the constraint to greenfield development from the

tightly-drawn Green Belt has been very successful in promoting redevelopment of the few significant

brownfield sites in Wilmslow, and as a result there is very little land in the urban area available for

redevelopment, although a small allowance is appropriate for the few small sites that do remain.

There is an area of safeguarded land at Adlington Road that is not included within the current Green

Belt boundary.

There is, at present, a quantum of vacant office space in Wilmslow and consideration was given to

whether conversion of this space to residential is likely to make a contribution to meeting housing

needs in the town. Despite the introduction of new Permitted Development rights in this area, there

has been little interest in converting offices in Wilmslow to date. The Employment Land Review

(2012) considers that Wilmslow’s location close to Manchester Airport makes it an important part of

the South Manchester office market. Despite low present take-up rates, there remains a perception

amongst agents and developers that the town is a strong office location in the South Manchester

market. This will only strengthen once the Waters Corporation relocation is complete and the

concept of Airport City develops further. In 2011, Wilmslow was the location of the highest rental

value office property in Cheshire East (£17.50/sq.ft) and the 2013 Cheshire East Annual Commercial

Property Report reveals that in 2012, deals for the sale or let of nearly 3,000 sq.m of office

floorspace were completed in Wilmslow. As a result, it is considered unlikely that office


accommodation in the town will make any significant contribution to meeting housing needs during

the Plan period.

There is also a major redevelopment site a short distance away at Woodford Aerodrome in the

neighbouring Stockport Metropolitan Borough (considered in Poynton section above) but this does

not make a contribution to meeting housing needs in Cheshire East.

Since 2010, there have been 72 net additional dwellings completed in Wilmslow and planning

permission exists for just 15 net new dwellings.

There is an area of safeguarded land at Adlington Road that lies between the urban edge and the

inner boundary of the Green Belt which could potentially accommodate up to around 225 new

dwellings. In addition, there could be capacity for up to 37 new dwellings on other brownfield

SHLAA sites..

This gives a total capacity in Wilmslow for an estimated 349 new dwellings.

Alderley Edge

Brownfield redevelopment sites within Alderley Edge are few and far between. Since 2010, there

have been 14 net additional dwellings completed in Alderley Edge and planning permission exists for

a further 20.

In addition, the SHLAA indicates that there is no further capacity for new dwellings on brownfield

land.

This gives a total capacity in Alderley Edge for an estimated 34 new dwellings.

Bollington

Unlike many other areas within north Cheshire, Bollington does have a legacy of industrial land as it

developed during the Industrial Revolution as a centre for textile manufacturing. There has been a

supply of old mills and other industrial premises that has enabled recycling of land within the urban

area. Whilst the supply of these sites is finite, and there is a need to retain employment within the

town, there may be some scope for further redevelopment of industrial areas for residential

purposes during the Plan period.

In addition, there is an area of undeveloped allocated employment land to the rear of Lowerhouse

Mills that may or may not be suitable for housing. At 2.69 hectares, this site could potentially

accommodate around 81 new dwellings (assuming a build density of 30 dwellings per hectare).

Since 2010, there have been 16 net additional dwellings completed in Bollington and there are 215

which either have some form of planning permission, or where the Council is minded to grant

permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement.

In addition, there could be capacity for up to 97 new dwellings on other brownfield SHLAA sites..

This gives a total capacity in Bollington for an estimated 409 new dwellings.

Chelford

There are two significant sites in Chelford which, although currently in active use, have potential to

provide new housing during the Plan period. These are the haulage depot and the cattle market


sites. It is not appropriate to make a further allowance for these sites as they both benefit from a

resolution to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement and

allowance is already made in the planning permission figures below.

There have been no net additional dwellings completed in Chelford since 2010; there is planning

permission for 1 net additional dwelling and the Council is minded to approve permission for

another 136 dwellings subject to signing of a Section 106 Agreement.

In addition, there could be capacity for up to 21 new dwellings on other brownfield SHLAA sites.

This gives a total capacity in Chelford for an estimated 158 new dwellings.

Disley

There is one significant underused industrial area in Disley that may contribute to meeting housing

needs in the Plan period, but as with Chelford it is not appropriate to make a further allowance for

this site as it benefits from a resolution to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a

Section 106 Agreement.

Since 2010, there have been 5 net additional dwellings completed in Disley and there are 189 which

either have some form of planning permission, or where the Council is minded to grant permission

subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement.

In addition, there could be capacity for up to 39 new dwellings on other brownfield SHLAA sites.

This gives a total capacity in Disley for an estimated 233 new dwellings.

Mobberley

Mobberley also contains one significantly underused industrial area and there is known to be

development interest for housing. As set out in the ‘Possible Additional Sites’ consultation, this site

could potentially accommodate around 237 new dwellings. There are no other known brownfield

opportunities in the village.

There have been only 6 net additional dwellings completed in Mobberley since 2010 and the total

number of net additional dwellings that could be built under existing planning permissions is zero.

In addition, there could be capacity for one new dwelling on other brownfield SHLAA sites.

This gives a total capacity in Mobberley for an estimated 244 new dwellings.

Prestbury

Prestbury is predominantly a commuter village with little in the way of brownfield land within the

urban area.

There have been 11 net additional dwellings completed since 2010 and there is planning permission

for a further 20.

In addition, there could be capacity for one new dwelling on other brownfield SHLAA sites.

This gives a total capacity in Prestbury for an estimated 32 new dwellings.


High Legh

High Legh is a small village, the majority of which was built in the 1960s as a planned village. As a

result, there are no further brownfield opportunities within the village itself.

There have been 2 net additional dwellings completed in High Legh since 2010 and the total number

of net additional dwellings that could be built under existing planning permissions is zero.

In addition, the SHLAA indicates that there is no further capacity for new dwellings on brownfield

land.

This gives a total capacity in High Legh for an estimated 2 new dwellings.

Overall

Settlement Net Completions Since 2010

Net Commitments

Additional SHLAA Brownfield

Other (non Green Belt) sites

Total

Macclesfield 365 559 377 900 2,201

Handforth 96 24 9 250 379

Knutsford 15 29 58 350 452

Poynton -3 9 70 0 76

Wilmslow 72 15 37 225 349

Alderley Edge 14 20 0 0 34

Bollington 16 215 97 81 409

Chelford 0 137 21 0 158

Disley 5 189 39 0 233

Mobberley 6 0 1 237 244

Prestbury 11 20 1 0 32

High Legh 2 0 0 0 2

Total 599 1,217 710 2,043 4,569 Figure 4.5: Potential capacity for new housing by settlement

There is capacity within the settlements in the northern part of the Borough inset within the Green

Belt boundary to accommodate 4,569 net additional dwellings over the plan period. This represents

16.9% of the total of 27,000 new homes by 2030 as set out in the Development Strategy.

Settlement Population (2011 Census)

Macclesfield 52,186

Handforth 6,570

Knutsford 13,191

Poynton 13,016

Wilmslow 23,662

Alderley Edge 5,276

Bollington 7,593

Chelford 1,219

Disley 4,444

Mobberley 3,050

Prestbury 3,398

High Legh 556

Total 134,161

Figure 4.6: Population by settlement


Figure 4.6 shows the usually-resident population in each settlement. Within all of the settlements

inset within the North Cheshire Green Belt, there is a total population of 134,161. This represents

36.2% of the total resident population of Cheshire East recorded in the 2011 Census (370,127).

The Development Strategy envisaged that the Principal Town (Macclesfield) and Key Service Centres

(Handforth, Knutsford, Poynton and Wilmslow) would need 6,500 new dwellings over the plan

period with other smaller settlements contributing an appropriate proportion of the 4,000 dwellings

in Local Service Centres and Sustainable Villages envisaged across Cheshire East.

Settlements inset within the North Cheshire Green Belt are in an area of high demand for new

housing and their development in the recent past has been restricted by Green Belt boundaries. The

provision of only 16.1% of the total new housing in Cheshire East within these settlements with

pent-up demand containing 36.2% of the total population is not considered to meet the objectively

identified development needs of this area.

4.3.4 Channelling Development to locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary

There are large areas of Cheshire East that lie beyond the outer Green Belt boundary and

consideration must also be given to channelling development needs arising in settlements inset into

the Green Belt in these areas beyond the Green Belt. It could be argued that some of the residual

need from the northern Green Belt areas could be channelled to locations beyond the outer Green

Belt boundary.

Consideration was given to direct a significant proportion of the new housing to Crewe – a principal

town located in the south of Cheshire East beyond the outer edge of the Green Belt. Crewe is

recognised as the Council’s biggest spatial priority and a location for jobs-led growth. Detailed traffic

modelling and infrastructure planning work has demonstrated that an over-dependence on Crewe to

meet development needs would not be feasible. Regeneration and growth in Crewe remains the

Council’s spatial priority and it is proposed that the town takes the maximum level of development

that is possible without unacceptable impacts on its infrastructure.

Jobs-led growth is also an aspiration for Congleton, where a significant urban extension is proposed

which would increase the number of dwellings in the town by nearly 30% over the 20 year plan

period.

The other Key Service Centres beyond the Green Belt (Alsager, Middlewich, Nantwich and Sandbach)

would also accommodate very significant levels of growth over the plan period. The Development

Strategy set out an indicative provision of new housing throughout the plan period 2010 – 2030.

Using data from the 2011 Census, Figure 4.7 below shows the indicative proportion of growth

envisaged in each Principal Town and Key Service Centre.


Settlement Green Belt Status

Existing Dwellings (2011 Census)

Proposed Net Additional Dwellings (Development Strategy)

Indicative Growth in Dwellings 2010-2030

Congleton Beyond the Green Belt

11,981 3,500 29.2%

Middlewich Beyond the Green Belt

5,920 1,500 25.3%

Sandbach Beyond the Green Belt

8,119 1,800 22.2%

Crewe Beyond the Green Belt

31,460 6,500 20.7%

Alsager Beyond the Green Belt

5,834 1,100 20.4%

Nantwich Beyond the Green Belt

8,536 1,500 17.6%

Macclesfield Inset within the Green Belt

24,144 3,500 14.5%

Knutsford Inset within the Green Belt

6,131 400 6.5%

Handforth1 Inset within

the Green Belt 3,219 200 6.2%

Wilmslow Inset within the Green Belt

10,733 400 3.7%

Poynton Inset within the Green Belt

5,667 200 3.5%

Figure 4.7: Indicative Growth in Number of Dwellings by

Settlement(Principal Towns and Key Service Centres)

Within Cheshire East, there is a clear spatial strategy to provide a significant proportion of the

Borough’s development needs in locations outside of the Green Belt. Without exception, the

Principal Towns and Key Service Centres beyond the Green Belt will accommodate a significant

proportion of housing growth, ranging between 17.6% in Nantwich to 29.2% in Congleton.

Conversely, it can be seen that the settlements inset within the Green Belt will accommodate a

lower proportion of housing growth, ranging from 3.5% in Poynton to 14.5% in Macclesfield.

Overall, these settlements inset in the Green Belt have a total dwelling stock of 49,894. The

Development Strategy proposals would increase this by 13.0% (+6,500 net additional homes

including those proposed as part of the Handforth East new settlement). It is important to note that

these figures showing a significantly lower proportion of growth in housing stock in the settlements

inset within the Green Belt include a number of developments on Green Belt land as set out in the

Development Strategy. If Green Belt boundaries were not altered, and these settlements inset

within the Green Belt accommodated the maximum number of dwellings possible without incursions

into the Green Belt (shown in Figure 4.5), the overall indicative proportion of growth across these

settlements would be only 6.9% (+3,457 net additional homes).

1 The Development Strategy also includes a proposal for 1800 new homes in the Green Belt during the plan period at Handforth East (new settlement) to go some way towards meeting the identified development needs in the north of the Borough.


It is clear that a significant proportion of the overall Borough’s development needs are proposed to

be met in locations beyond the Green Belt and that some of the development needs arising in

settlements inset within the Green Belt are proposed to be channelled to locations beyond it. It is

considered that there would be real sustainability implications of channelling all remaining

development needs to these areas.

A significant proportion of the Borough’s development needs arise in the north with high demand

for housing as evidence in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. North Cheshire is an integral

part of the Manchester City Region; economic, travel to work and cultural connections mean that

the local needs partly arise from the area’s proximity to the conurbation. Channelling further

development to locations beyond the outer edge of the Green Belt would lead to development in

places where people don’t necessarily want to live. In the towns inset within the North Cheshire

Green Belt, this is likely to result more unaffordable housing, an increasingly ageing population, a

reduced working-age population, a decline in town centres and a significant increase in congestion

as people travel longer distances to work.

Furthermore, Infrastructure capacity and other environmental issues mean that it is undesirable to

overloading areas beyond the Green Belt with additional development.

As well as areas within Cheshire East, consideration has been given to other neighbouring areas

beyond the outer Green Belt boundary which could potentially accommodate development needs

arising in settlements inset into the Green Belt.

Peak District National Park

Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) Section 5 as amended by Section

61 of the 1995 Environment Act, the statutory purposes of the National Park designation are:

i. To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the national

parks; and

ii. to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities [of

the parks] by the public.

In line with these purposes, the Peak Park Core Strategy does not set a housing target, does not

allocate land for housing development and policy HC1 is clear that “provision will not be made for

housing solely to meet open market demand”. New housing is limited to affordable homes with

occupation restricted to local people in perpetuity and some other very limited circumstances. The

Peak District National Park is not an appropriate location to meet development needs arising in

Cheshire East.

High Peak Borough

The possibility of meeting needs within areas of High Peak Borough that are outside of the National

Park and that are either inset within the Green Belt boundary (including New Mills and Chinley) or

beyond the outer edge of the Green Belt (including Whaley Bridge, Chapel-en-le-Frith and Buxton)

has been considered.

Most of these areas within High Peak Borough could be considered to be fairly remote from the

areas of north Cheshire where the need arises, particularly when considering the geography and

topography of the area. The High Peak sub-area already experiences a low jobs-density and a high


level of out-commuting for employment. Provision of development in the High Peak Borough to

meet some of Cheshire East’s housing needs is likely to represent unsustainable patterns of

development, increasing the distance people travel to work. In particular, it is likely to increase the

volume of traffic crossing the Peak District National Park to access employment, education, retail

and leisure opportunities back in Cheshire.

Furthermore, within its emerging Local Plan, High Peak Borough Council is proposing to deliver a

lower level of new housing than was previously required under the East Midlands Regional Spatial

Strategy and a lower level than its identified need, based on any of the following methods of

prediction:

Meeting projected housing needs based on sub-national household projections

Long term migration based projections;

Long term completion rates;

Maintaining the labour force a supporting economic growth

The reasons for pursuing a lower level of housebuilding are to maintain an enhanced degree of

environmental protection, positive impacts on townscape quality and heritage and least pressure for

the release of greenfield or agricultural land. The disadvantages of following such an approach

include a fall in the labour force, a least positive impact on town centres and a low ability to meet

housing need and deliver affordable housing.

Overall, it is clear that Cheshire East’s housing needs cannot be accommodated within High Peak

Borough. Any increase in the level of housebuilding in the High Peak would serve to meet a higher

proportion of its own housing needs, rather than meeting any needs arising within Cheshire East.

Cheshire West and Chester

The North Cheshire Green Belt extends across into the neighbouring authority area of Cheshire West

and Chester. The urban areas of Northwich, Davenham and Winsford lie beyond the outer boundary

of the Green Belt. Although relatively close to the boundary with Cheshire East, these locations

remain fairly distant from the majority of the Cheshire East settlements inset within the Green Belt

where the development needs arise.

As part of the preparation of its new Local Plan, Cheshire West and Chester Council has published a

Housing Requirement Background Paper. This considers sites with permission and potential sites

that could come forward during the Plan period. Overall, there remains a need to identify further

sites to accommodate around 4,000 dwellings. The study shows that some areas (Chester, Winsford

and Rural) will need to find a significant level of greenfield sites beyond the existing built up area to

meet identified requirements. Furthermore, Cheshire West and Chester Council has published its

own proposals for review of the Green Belt around the city of Chester. This is important as it

indicates the difficulties faced by Cheshire West and Chester in meeting its own identified

development needs without making incursions into the Green Belt.

4.3.5 Channelling development towards the urban area within the Green Belt

Some of the identified development needs could potentially be met within the southern part of the

Greater Manchester conurbation (Manchester / Stockport / Trafford).


Greater Manchester

Manchester City Council, Stockport Council and Trafford Council all have adopted Core Strategies

and each authority has confirmed that there is little scope to accommodate any of the need arising

from Cheshire East within Greater Manchester.

The population of the City of Manchester is rising rapidly following decades of population decline

and its Core Strategy sets a housing provision figure of 60,000 new dwellings between March 2009

and April 2027 (3,333 net additional dwellings per year). The southern part of the city, with

strongest links to communities in Cheshire East has a number of traditionally popular residential

areas which do not suffer from the same levels of vacant and derelict land witnessed in other parts

of the city. As such, the Core Strategy directs the vast majority of new housing to the north, east

and inner areas of Manchester in addition to the city centre. The South Manchester sub-area is only

expected to accommodate 5% of the new housing over the Plan period, reflecting the lack of land

available for new residential development.

The Draft Greater Manchester Strategy 2013-2020 proposes a change in emphasis of development

locations within Greater Manchester. Historically, the approach to land supply (for both

employment and housing) has been to support growth in areas in need of regeneration which is

evident in the spatial distribution of development set out in the Manchester Core Strategy. The

draft Greater Manchester Strategy recognises that this approach may have the effect of limiting

investment and growth in the city-region as a whole and proposes a new approach to focus land

supply to support growth in those locations most attractive to the market.

If this approach is reflected in future revisions of the Manchester Core Strategy, it is likely to have

the effect of focussing more development in the popular southern part of the city region closest to

Cheshire East, further reducing land supply in this area to accommodate any of the needs arising in

Cheshire.

Within Stockport, there is a large redevelopment site close to the boundary with Cheshire East at

Woodford. Discussions with Stockport MBC confirm that the Woodford site is required to meet

development needs arising from within Stockport and cannot be considered to meeting the needs of

Cheshire East.

4.3.6 Overall Development Figures

Some of the required land to deliver overall identified development needs can be delivered within

the towns and villages inset into the Green Belt, but not all. Some of the required development can

be channelled to locations beyond the Green Belt boundary. The remainder of the required

development cannot be delivered within the urban area inside the Green Belt, without incursions

into the Green Belt.

One other alternative to reviewing Green Belt boundaries is to reduce the overall amount of housing

and employment land to deliver during the plan period.

This is not considered to be an appropriate or sustainable approach. The proposed level of provision

is already suppressed from the level of need suggested by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment

to take account of all the other evidence, including environmental and infrastructure constraints.

Some of the identified need is already being exported beyond the outer boundary of the Green Belt.


Not meeting a reasonable proportion of the need arising in towns inset into the North Cheshire

Green Belt would have adverse implications for housing affordability, the local economy, viability of

local town centres, facilities and services, increased travel to work and difficulty in recruiting as set

out in section 4.3.1.

4.4 South Cheshire Green Belt Within the southern part of the Borough, the arguments for a review of detailed Green Belt

boundaries are different to those in the north.

Although the South Cheshire Green Belt extends to Alsager and Congleton, both of these

settlements are located just beyond the outer edge of the Green Belt rather than being inset within

it and retain sufficient room for expansion without incursions into the Green Belt. None of the other

major settlements in South Cheshire are constrained by Green Belt. Clearly then, the arguments for

exceptional circumstances in the north of the Borough, relating to the inability to meet objectively

assessed development needs without incursions into the Green Belt, are not applicable to the South

Cheshire Green Belt.

Within the Development Strategy, proposals for development in the South Cheshire Green Belt were

introduced as part of a wider South-East Crewe growth corridor with enabling development to

facilitate the dualling of the A500 improving transport links between Crewe / Nantwich and the M6

motorway / Potteries conurbation.

In terms of demonstrating the exceptional circumstances required to alter Green Belt boundaries, it

is considered these would be more site-specific and dependent on the individual development

proposals and how they would contribute to and improve the local area. For example, in terms of

the proposals for new employment land near the M6 junction 16, there is potential to develop an

argument based on the economic case and the provision of additional employment land in locations

attractive to the market to support regeneration efforts in both Crewe and the Potteries and

increasing the number of jobs available locally. The M6 corridor would be an attractive location for

business investment and the area around junction 16 has excellent accessibility both north-south

and east-west. Improvements to the A500 could also help improve connectivity to Crewe and

increase its investment prospects.

However, as these arguments are more site-specific, it will be for individual proposals to set out the

exceptional circumstances that justify the alteration of Green Belt boundaries in each case.


5 Assessment Results: Strategic Parcels in the Green Belt

5.1 Introduction This section identifies the strategic parcels of land for assessment and gives a brief commentary on

the results of the assessments by location. The full assessments for each strategic parcel are

included in Appendix A.

5.2 Potential Sustainable Locations for Development This stage of the assessment identifies areas within the Green Belt that represent potential locations

for sustainable development. Note that this study does not determine whether these are actually

sustainable locations for development, but they are identified as ‘potential sustainable locations’ in

order to reduce the size of the study area.

These are:

Areas surrounding Principal Towns;

Areas surrounding Key Service Centres;

Areas surrounding Local Service Centres; and

Areas with potential significant development pressure, of a scale that could deliver new

settlements of a size that would provide a comprehensive range of facilities and services for

their future residents, and therefore be considered sustainable settlements.

These are shown in Figure 5.1 below:

Figure 5.1: Potential Green Belt Sustainable Locations for Development


The Green Belt areas identified for further investigation are:

1. Alderley Edge periphery;

2. Alsager south and east periphery;

3. Barthomley and Weston;

4. Bollington periphery;

5. Chelford periphery and Nether Alderley;

6. Congleton south and east periphery;

7. Disley periphery;

8. Handforth periphery;

9. High Legh periphery;

10. Knutsford periphery;

11. Macclesfield periphery;

12. Mere and Bucklow Hill;

13. Mobberley periphery;

14. Poynton periphery;

15. Prestbury periphery;

16. Radway Green periphery;

17. Rode Heath periphery;

18. Siddington; and

19. Wilmslow periphery.

Areas of Green Belt land outside of these locations are considered to be unlikely candidates for

future development and are not considered further in the assessment.

5.3 Strategic Parcels of Land for Assessment A total of 315 strategic parcels of land within the Green Belt have been identified for further

assessment. These are shown in Figures 5.2 to 5.19 below.


5.4 Assessment of Parcels As described in the methodology, the assessments of strategic parcels consider the relative extent to

which each parcel fulfils the purposes of Green Belts as set out in the National Planning Policy

Framework. The purposes related to ‘preserving the setting and special character of historic towns’

and ‘to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land’

have been screened out because these would be applied equally to each parcel. The original

reasons for designating the Cheshire Green Belt were to prevent the outward spread of

development from the adjacent conurbations and to restrict the spread of development around the

historic town of Chester (which is outside of the study area). It is considered (at least in terms of

Green Belt policy) that none of the settlements in the study area are classed as historic towns. It is

also considered that encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land could be applied

equally to all land in the Green Belt.

The detailed results of the assessments are shown in an assessment matrix in Appendix A, where a

written assessment of each of the 315 strategic segments can be found. The results have also been

mapped by settlement to assist with understanding of the findings.

5.4.1 Alderley Edge

Land Making a Major Contribution to Green Belt Purposes

Land to the north and north-west of Alderley Edge (parcels ALE01, ALE02, ALE03, ALE04,

ALE14, ALE15 and ALE16).

This area forms a band across the north and north-western edges of the village. Some of the parcels

in this area suffer from weak boundaries to prevent encroachment out into the open countryside

but all are important in maintaining the openness of the Green Belt between Alderley Edge and

Wilmslow and keeping the settlements separate.

Land Making a Significant Contribution to Green Belt Purposes

Land south-east, south-west and north-east of Alderley Edge (parcels ALE05, ALE07, ALE08,

ALE09, ALE11 and ALE12)

Various parcels around the eastern, southern and western fringes of the village. These are generally

in agricultural use and do not perform a particularly strong separation function. Some of the parcels

are not strongly bounded and play an important role in safeguarding the wider countryside from

encroachment. Given the number of local lanes leading out of and around the village, many of these

parcels are important in preventing ribbon and linear development spreading outwards along these

lanes.

Land Making a Contribution to Green Belt Purposes

Land west of Alderley Edge up to the new bypass; Land south of Alderley Edge between

railway and A34; land east of Alderley Edge bounded by local roads (parcels ALE06, ALE10

and ALE13)

These parcels do serve a Green Belt function but to a lesser extent to other land surrounding the

village. They have stronger boundaries to limit the extent of any future development and (with the

exception of ALE13) have experienced a significant degree of encroachment by built development


5.4.4 Bollington


Land to the south-west of Bollington (parcels BLG10, BLG11 and BLG12)

These parcels serve an important separation function and maintain the openness of the Green belt

between Bollington, Prestbury and Macclesfield.


Majority of land surrounding Bollington to the north, east and south (parcels BLG01, BLG02.

BLG03, BLG04, BLG05, BLG06, BLG07, BLG08, BLG14, BLG15, BLG16, BLG18, BLG19, BLG21

and BLG22)

These parcels do vary somewhat in character but a number have weak boundaries which would be

unlikely to be sufficient to prevent encroachment some way out into the open countryside without

their Green Belt designation. Most are fairly free from built development and are open in character.


Limited number of parcels well connected to the urban area (parcels BLG09, BLG13, BLG17

and BLG20)

These parcels do contribute to the purposes of Green Belt, but to a lesser extent than elsewhere due

to their strong connections to the urban area and presence of strong boundaries which would

prevent development spilling out into the open countryside beyond.

Figure 5.23: Bollington Summary Results of Assessment against Green Belt Purposes


5.4.11 Macclesfield


Land north-west of Macclesfield (parcels MAC06, MAC07 and MAC08)

Most areas beyond the edge of the settlement to the north and east of Macclesfield (parcels

MAC15, MAC16, MAC18, MAC20, MAC22, MAC23, MAC28, MAC32, MAC33, MAC34 and

MAC35)

The land to the north-west of Macclesfield plays an important role in maintaining the openness of

the Green Belt between Macclesfield and Prestbury, and in preventing the settlements from

merging. It also has a role in preventing linear type development spreading outwards along the

exiting local road network, which would also reduce the gap between settlements. The land to the

north is again important in maintaining the narrow gap between Macclesfield, Prestbury and

Bollington and in preventing the settlements from merging.

Land beyond the outer edges of the settlement to the east plays less of a separation role, but the

majority is open countryside detached from the urban area with few urbanising influences and weak

boundaries to contain any future development and prevent it from spreading some distance out into

the countryside. The Green Belt designation here also prevents further linear development

spreading outwards into the countryside along the local road network.


Majority of the area south and south-west of Macclesfield (parcels MAC01, MAC02, MAC04,

MAC05, MAC36, MAC37 and MAC38)

Isolated parcels of land close to the edge of the settlement to the north and east of

Macclesfield (parcels MAC09, MAC10, MAC21, MAC27 and MAC31)

Parts of the area to the south and south-west are also not well connected to the urban area but in

some places there are pockets of built development already. The main concern is the lack of an

identifiable defensible boundary to limit the long-term spread of development out into the open

countryside. Some parcels also play a role in maintaining the separation between Macclesfield and

Gawsworth, although this gap is wider than those to the north separating Bollington and Prestbury.

There are also some isolated parcels to the north and east that do not serve quite such a strong

Green Belt function as some of the parcels around them (although they are still important). In many

cases, this is because they are slightly better related to the urban area and have stronger boundaries

to limit the spread of development in the longer term.


Isolated parcels to the south-west and north (parcels MAC03, MAC14, MAC17 and MAC19)

Riverside Park area extending into the urban area (parcels MAC11, MAC12 and MAC13)

Some parcels to the east of the town well connected to the urban area (parcels MAC24,

MAC25, MAC26, MAC29 and MAC30)

Although making a contribution to Green Belt purposes, the isolated parcels to the south-west and

north make less of a contribution than some other parcels due to their stronger connection with the

urban area, stronger boundaries and (in some cases) high levels of existing development within


them. The Riverside Park area, whilst important in amenity and other terms, does not perform a

strong Green Belt function and is almost entirely surrounded by the urban area.

Similarly, there are areas to the east of the town which are well-connected to the urban area and

have good boundaries to prevent development spreading out into the surrounding open countryside

in the longer term. Whilst these areas perform an important amenity function, their containment by

the urban area and (in some cases) high level of existing development within them, has reduced

their contributions to the purposes of Green Belt.

Figure 5.30: Macclesfield Summary Results of Assessment against Green Belt Purposes


5.4.14 Poynton


Majority of the land to the west and north of Poynton (parcels PYT06, PYT07, PYT19, PYT11,

PYT12, PYT14 and PYT15)

There is a very narrow gap between Poynton and parts of the Greater Manchester conurbation

including Woodford, Bramhall and Hazel Grove. Parcels of land to the east and north are, in general,

important in maintaining the openness of the Green Belt between Poynton and the conurbation and

in preventing them merging. The land is generally open in character and in places, quite detached

from the urban area.


Majority of the land to the east and south of Poynton (parcels PYT02, PYT04, PYT05, PYT16,

PYT17, PYT18, PYT20 and PYT21)

Individual parcels to the east of Poynton (parcels PYT08 and PYT10)

These areas generally serve less of a separation function but are important in protecting the

countryside from encroachment.


A number of smaller, well-bounded areas with good connections to the urban area (parcels

PYT01, PYT03, PYT13 and PYT19)

These parcels are well-connected to the urban area and a number of them have a level of built

development already. In the main, they could be considered as urban fringe areas rather than open

countryside with strong boundaries to prevent further encroachment into the surrounding

countryside in the future.


Figure 5.33: Poynton Summary Results of Assessment against Green Belt Purposes


5.4.15 Prestbury


Land to the north and east of Prestbury (parcel PRE01, PRE02 and PRE15)

Land south of Prestbury (parcel PRE07)

These parcels vary somewhat in character but most serve an important function in maintaining a gap

between Prestbury and the adjacent settlements of Macclesfield and Bollington.


Land south-east of the village centre (parcel PRE03)

Land west of Prestbury (parcels PRE08, PRE09, PRE10, PRE11, PRE12, PRE13 and PRE14)

These parcels play an important role in preventing encroachment into the surrounding countryside

and, in many cases, in preventing linear / ribbon development spreading further outwards along the

local road network.


Land south of the village centre (parcels PRE04, PRE05 and PRE06)

Much of this finger is isolated from the wider Green Belt and is well-connected to the urban area.

Figure 5.34: Prestbury Summary Results of Assessment against Green Belt Purposes

82

Bollington Strategic Parcel 1 Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas 2 Prevent nearby towns from merging into one

another 3 Assist in safeguarding the countryside from

encroachment Overall evaluation Overall

assessment

BLG01 – Land to the east of Shrigley Road, between Spuley Lane and Smithy Brow

Significant Contribution: Well contained to the south and west, where the parcel adjoins the main urban edge. The northern boundary is the Peak District National Park boundary. Formed by field boundaries and hedgerows, this would not be sufficient in itself in preventing further ribbon development along Shrigley Road.

Contribution: Does not have a significant role in preventing settlements merging, but forms part of the wider Green Belt separating Macclesfield / Bollington and Stockport.

Significant Contribution: Parcel mainly consists of undulating agricultural land, although rural properties are scattered across the landscape and more substantial development is visible to the south, limiting the feeling of openness. Development advances further north on the opposite side of Shrigley Road reducing the importance of the parcel in preventing encroachment.

Located to the north east of Bollington, the parcel is well contained (with the exception of the northern boundary) and has good connections with the urban edge. There are a number of rural properties scattered across the parcel in what is predominantly undulating agricultural land. The parcel prevents ribbon development along Smithy Brow and further ribbon development along Shrigley Road. Its function in terms of encroachment is reduced slightly by the level of development on the opposite side of Shrigley Road.

Significant Contribution

BLG02 – Land between Smithy Brow and Oakenbank Lane

Significant Contribution: Compact parcel of land, located on the edge of Bollington, detached from the main urban area and has moderate boundaries. Currently limits the ability of ribbon development forming up Smithy Brow.

Contribution: Part of the wider Green Belt, but does not have a separation function.

Significant Contribution: Important in preventing the spread of Bollington eastwards into open land. With moderate boundaries and very few urbanising influences, the parcel does not adjoin the urban area, leaving it divorced from the urban edge and therefore susceptible to future encroachment.

Situated away from the main urban area, the parcel is within agricultural use and is free from urbanising influences. With moderate boundaries surrounding the parcel, the land has an important role in preventing ribbon development along Smithy Brow and in preventing long term encroachment eastwards.


BLG03 – Land south of Smithy Road / Ingersley Road / Mill Lane junction, incorporating Savio House

Significant Contribution: Moderate to weak boundaries surround the parcel and are mainly formed from private roads, lines of trees or field boundaries. Very limited opportunity for ribbon development to form but the parcel is completely divorced from the main urban area, although there are a number of buildings at the southern end of the parcel associated with Savio House.

Contribution: Does not have a significant role in separation of Bollington from other settlements, although it does form part of the wider Green Belt.

Significant Contribution: Existing uses within the parcel include Savio House and associated developments. The remaining land is open countryside. The area is divorced from the settlement, has a good sense of openness and the lack of any strong physical or visual features to form boundaries to the parcel, expose it to future encroachment into the countryside.

This parcel includes Savio House, a rural retreat with associated buildings. The moderate to weak boundaries mostly formed by private roads, lines of trees or field boundaries, mean that the opportunity for ribbon Development is limited. However the parcel is divorced from the urban area and has a good sense of openness. This coupled with the moderate to weak boundaries make this land important in preventing encroachment.


BLG04 – Land east of Mill Lane and Ingersley Vale

Significant Contribution: Parcel is well connected to the urban area to the north where it adjoins Mill Lane, and to the West where the parcel backs onto the Ingersley Vale former industrial area. There are no urbanising influences within the parcel and the insubstantial boundaries to the south and east highlight the importance of the area in preventing sprawl from the industrial area and along Mill Lane.

Contribution: Does not have a significant role in the separation of Bollington from other settlements, although it does form part of the wider Green Belt.

Major Contribution: Land is mainly open countryside with a number of footpaths crossing the parcel. Land is adjacent to the urban edge, backing onto the Ingersley Vale former industrial area and also opposite a number of properties along Mill Lane. Weak boundaries surround the eastern and southern edges of the parcel, which would be vulnerable to encroachment in the longer term.

Small parcel of land to the south east of Bollington. Predominantly open in character the land adjoins the Ingersley Vale former industrial area and Mill Lane. Weak boundaries formed by the driveway to Savio House and a line of trees leave the parcel vulnerable to encroachment from the industrial area and ribbon development along Mill Lane.


BLG05 – Land south of Lord Street

Significant Contribution: Parcel prevents some development along Cow Lane and Lord Street (although very little of the parcel adjoins existing development here). The bigger role is in preventing the spread of the Ingersley Vale industrial area southwards and westwards.

Contribution: Does not have a significant role in the separation of Bollington from other settlements, although it does form part of the wider Green Belt.

Major Contribution: Parcel adjoins the urban area along the north and east boundaries, but the remaining boundaries are much weaker – formed by a track and a footpath which would be insufficient in safeguarding against future encroachment.

Relatively large parcel, free from urbanising influences located to the south east of Bollington. Connected to the urban edge to the north and west, although few opportunities for ribbon development to form. The weaker southern and western boundaries leave the area susceptible to future encroachment.


BLG06 – Land south of Chancery Lane

Significant Contribution: Well contained and connected to the urban area, with Chancery Lane to the north, Jackson Lane to the west and Redway Lane to the south, although a public footpath forms a weaker boundary to the south. Ribbon development already evident within the parcel along Redway Lane and to a lesser extent along Jackson Lane. There would be some opportunity for further ribbon development to take place.

Contribution: Does not have a significant role in the separation of Bollington from other settlements, although does contribute to the wider Green Belt.

Significant Contribution: Predominantly used for grazing animals, the parcel does have some urbanising influences, mostly confined to the south of the parcel. These include a church on Jackson Lane, a public house on Jackson Lane/Redway Lane and a row of residential properties also along Redway Lane. While the majority of the parcel is well contained, the weaker eastern boundary may expose the parcel to future encroachment into the open countryside.

Well contained parcel, with the exception of the eastern boundary. Well connected to the urban edge and contains a number of urbanising influences including existing ribbon development along Jackson Lane and Redway Lane (with some opportunity for additional ribbon development to form). The weak eastern boundary would however leave the area vulnerable to future encroachment.


BLG07 – Land between Oak Lane and Clarke Lane east of the Macclesfield Canal

Significant Contribution: Well contained by the local road network to the south and east (Clarke Lane and Oak Lane respectively), the Macclesfield Canal to the west and is connected to the main urban edge of Bollington to the north (although this is only a small proportion of the parcel). Extensive ribbon development already evident southwards along Oak Lane, which the parcel has a role in limiting.

Significant Contribution: Forms part of a narrow gap between Bollington and Tytherington. The area of Bollington Cross is closer and could therefore be argued that the parcel does not reduce the overall gap. However, because it is a relatively large parcel, it would change the settlement pattern, which would have a much greater impact in bringing the 2 settlements together.

Significant Contribution: The parcel is well connected to the urban edge along the northern boundary and contains a number of urbanising influences, including ribbon development along Oak Lane, Hollin Hall Hotel, farm buildings and buildings and development associated with the canal. The remaining area is open in character and is mostly used for grazing. Parcel has an important role in preventing encroachment southwards into a narrow gap separating Bollington and Tytherington.

A large parcel to the south of Bollington, containing a number of urbanising influences including residential properties along Oak Lane, which the parcel has an important role in preventing the spread of this southwards. The prevention of encroachment into the countryside is also important, as the gap between Bollington and Tytherington is narrow here.


83

Strategic Parcel 1 Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas 2 Prevent nearby towns from merging into one another

3 Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

Overall evaluation Overall assessment

BLG08 – Land between the Macclesfield Canal and the Middlewood Way (path and cycle way)

Significant Contribution: Limited opportunity for ribbon development, due to the strong boundaries formed by the canal and path/cycle way. However, parcel is free from urbanising influences and only connects to the urban edge along the narrow northern boundary which adjoins an industrial area.

Significant Contribution: A long narrow parcel of land, located within the narrow gap between Bollington and Tytherington. Would not reduce the overall gap, as the area of Bollington Cross is closer, but it would have the effect of altering the settlement pattern, adding weight to this area of Bollington, which would have the effect of bringing the settlements closer together.

Significant Contribution: Extremely open in character and free from urbanising influences. The parcel is relatively detached from the urban edge (with the exception of a narrow edge along the northern boundary which adjoins the industrial estate). Parcel maintains the gap between Bollington and Tytherington and prevents the southwards spread of the settlement.

A relatively well contained parcel, very open in character and free from urbanising influences. Little opportunity for ribbon development to occur, but has important roles in maintaining the gap between Bollington and Tytherington and preventing the overall spread of Bollington southwards into the countryside.


BLG09 – Land south of Henshall Road, east of South West Avenue

Contribution: The parcel is well connected to the urban edge backing onto houses along South West Avenue (to the west), Henshall Road and Ledley Street (to the north) and an industrial area to the east. Very little opportunity for ribbon development to form along any of the boundaries. The southern boundary is weak (hedgerow), although it is very narrow and there is a possibility that it would not be sufficient to prevent sprawl longer term.

Contribution: Although part of a narrow gap between Bollington and Tytherington, the parcel is extremely narrow and separated from the narrowest part of the gap by the Bollington Cross area. Thus reducing the separation function of the parcel.

Contribution: The parcel is undulating farm land. Free from urbanising influences, although the urban edge is visible across the parcel. Encroachment has already taken place with the development of Bollington Cross, leaving the parcel relatively enclosed and unlikely to contribute towards further encroachment.

Relatively enclosed area of undulating farm land. The parcel does not have a role in preventing ribbon development, and has a limited role in preventing future encroachment. The land is part of a narrow strip of land separating Bollington and Tytherington, but does not have a separation function in its own right.

Contribution

BLG10 – Land north of Clarke Lane, east of Bollington Road

Significant Contribution: Well connected to the urban edge along the northern boundary, where the parcel backs onto a number of residential areas, and there are a number of detached properties to the south along Clarke Lane, where the parcel has a role in preventing ribbon development.

Major Contribution: Prevents the closure of an already narrow gap between Bollington and Tytherington and prevents the two settlements from merging.

Significant Contribution: The parcel is bound by strong boundaries formed by the urban edge to the north, Middlewood Way (path and cycle way) to the east, Clarke Lane to the south and Bollington Road to the west. There are also a number of urbanising influences which includes farm buildings and residential properties to the south, Bollington Leisure Centre to the north and Shatwell Fold in the centre of the parcel. However, because these urbanising influences are well dispersed, the parcel is able to remain relatively open in character and has a role in preventing the spread of Bollington southwards.

Located to the south of Bollington, this parcel is well contained, with strong boundaries. While there are relatively few opportunities for ribbon development to occur, the parcel has a role in preventing the spread of Bollington Southwards, and is essential in maintaining a gap between Bollington and Tytherington.

Major Contribution

BLG11 – Land between The Silk Road (A523), Bollington Road and Flash Lane

Significant Contribution: Part of the open countryside to the west of Bollington, backing onto properties along Bollington Road. Strong boundaries (formed by roads) contain the parcel. The Green Belt limits the opportunity for more ribbon development, particularly down Bollington Road and along Flash Lane.

Major Contribution: Part of a very narrow gap between Bollington, Tytherington and Prestbury. Loss of this gap would effectively lead to the three settlements merging.

Significant Contribution: Protects open land separating Bollington, Tytherington and Prestbury. Some urbanising uses including residential properties, Turner Heath Farm and a number of electricity pylons. Although there are strong boundaries to prevent long term encroachment, the parcel does not have a particularly strong connection to the urban edge.

Predominantly agricultural land abutting The Silk Road, containing a number of properties, particularly along Bollington Road and other urbanising uses. The parcel has a role in preventing further ribbon development along Bollington Road, buts its main role is maintaining the narrow gap between Bollington, Tytherington and Prestbury.

Major Contribution

BLG12 – Land north of Flash Lane

Major Contribution: Located to the west of Bollington, the parcel contains some existing development, although this is mainly confined to the periphery and includes a church and primary school, residential properties along Moss Brow and a number of farm buildings. The parcel is connected to the urban edge via development on Moss Brow and Flash Lane, where the parcel has a role in limiting further development along these routes. Weak boundaries mean that it would be difficult to prevent further sprawl in the longer term.

Major Contribution: Performs a role in maintaining a gap between Bollington and Prestbury. If development occurred here, the settlements would not merge although the gap would be significantly reduced and be extremely narrow.

Significant Contribution: The parcel contains some urbanising influences, but these are mostly confined to the periphery and the parcel still has a feeling of openness. Weak north and western boundaries formed from farm tracks, a footpath and field boundaries, are unlikely to be sufficient in preventing encroachment longer term.

Development is largely confined to the periphery, maintaining an open character to the parcel. The parcel currently limits further development along Moss Brow and Flash Lane. The weaker north and western boundaries would be unlikely to prevent long term encroachment and would significantly reduce the gap between Bollington and Prestbury.

Major Contribution

BLG13 – Land east of Moss Brow, north of Henshall Road

Contribution: Firmly contained parcel, enclosed by residential development. Prevents further development along Moss Brow and Henshall Road. However there is existing development at either end of Henshall Lane and Moss Brow and so could be used to connect existing development, helping to “round off” the existing settlement pattern.

Contribution: Contained by existing development, this parcel does not perform a separation function between Bollington and Prestbury.

Contribution: Well contained parcel of land, surrounded by existing residential development. The parcel itself is free from urbanising influences, but being surrounded by development, limits the feeling of openness. The strong boundary formed by Moss Brow would be sufficient to prevent future encroachment.

Located to the west of Bollington, well contained by residential properties and Dean Valley Community Primary School to the north. The parcel itself is free from urbanising influences, but has robust boundaries formed by existing development, Henshall Road and Moss Brow, which would prevent future encroachment. Parcel does not perform a separation function and has a limited role in preventing ribbon development.

Contribution

84




BLG14 - Land west of Moss Lane

Significant Contribution: Part of the parcel adjoins the existing urban area along the eastern boundary where the parcel backs onto properties off Moss Road and Woodlea Drive, but any development would feel isolated from the main urban area. The remaining boundaries are predominantly weak and are formed by a combination of farm tracks and a wooded area which follows the line of the River Dean. Very little opportunity for ribbon development to occur, although the parcel does prevent the general spread of Bollington north-westwards.

Contribution: Parcel has a limited role in maintaining a gap between Bollington and Butley Town, although it does serve a wider Green Belt function.

Significant Contribution: Land is predominantly in agricultural use, free from urbanising influences and only connected to the urban edge along one boundary, where the parcel backs onto properties off Moss Road and Woodlea Drive. Remaining parcel feels open in character and isolated from the main urban area. Weak boundaries formed by farm tracks and a wooded area which follows the line of the River Dean, are unlikely to prevent encroachment long term.

Relatively isolated from the main urban area, the parcel is only connected to the urban edge along one side. The remaining parcel is open in character and free from urbanising influences. With weak boundaries (particularly to the north and west) the parcel prevents encroachment into the countryside long term, although its role in preventing settlements merging is minimal, and there is limited opportunity for ribbon development to form.


BLG15 – Land north of Albert Road, incorporating Bollington Household recycling centre

Significant Contribution: Parcel is isolated from the main urban area and separated by the River Dean, which forms the southern and western boundaries. Weak boundaries surround the remainder of the parcel, formed by farm tracks and field boundaries. As such there is little opportunity for ribbon development to form.

Significant Contribution: Parcel helps maintain a gap between Bollington and Whiteley Green. Any development here would significantly reduce the gap between settlements and completely alter the existing settlement pattern.

Major Contribution: Separated from the main urban area by the River which forms the southern and western boundaries to the parcel. Remaining boundaries are formed by a combination of farm tracks and field boundaries which would be insufficient to prevent long term encroachment. The land is open and free from any built form (with the exception of the Bollington Household Recycling Centre which is located to the south of the parcel. Any development here would significantly alter the settlement pattern and lead to encroachment due to the openness and isolation of the parcel.

Located within open countryside to the north of Bollington and north of the River Dean. The parcel is isolated from urban development and is mostly used for agricultural purposes. Due to the isolation and nature of the boundaries there is little opportunity for ribbon development to form. However, the parcel helps to maintain an important gap between Bollington and Whiteley Green, and prevents encroachment into the countryside.


BLG16 - Land to the north east of Albert Road

Significant Contribution: A small parcel completely detached from the main urban area, within open countryside. The parcel is essentially a field used for grazing with weak boundaries including y trees, hedgerows and farm tracks. As such there is little opportunity for ribbon development to form, with the exception of Albert Road to the south, although development ceases before reaching the parcel.

Significant Contribution: Due to the small size of the parcel, its role in preventing Bollington and Whiteley Green merging is limited somewhat, although it does still form part of the gap between the settlements.

Major Contribution: Weak field boundaries surround the parcel, which would be insufficient in preventing encroachment longer term. The parcel is a large field used for grazing, free from any urbanising influences and has an open countryside feel.

Located within open countryside to the north of Bollington and north of the River Dean. The parcel is isolated from urban development and is used for agricultural purposes. Due to the isolation and nature of the boundaries there is little opportunity for ribbon development to form. However, the parcel helps to maintain an important gap between Bollington and Whiteley Green, and prevents encroachment into the countryside.


BLG17 – Land between Lowerhouse Mills, the reservoir and the River Dean

Contribution: a relatively small parcel of land abutting the existing settlement which is strongly bounded by existing development and the River Dean. Although the parcel is adjacent to the built up area, there is no potential for ribbon development to occur. There are no urbanising influences within the parcel although the adjacent industrial buildings and pylons to the north do affect the openness.


Contribution: the parcel is in agricultural use for grazing and although there are no urbanising influences within the parcel, the adjacent industrial buildings to the south and pylons to the north do affect the sense of openness. The reservoir, existing development and the River Dean provide good defensible boundaries to prevent further encroachment in the future.

Despite the lack of development within the parcel, its proximity to large industrial buildings and pylons affects the sense of openness. There are strong boundaries to prevent further encroachment and the parcel does not have a significant role in maintaining the separation of settlements.

Contribution

BLG18 – Land north of the River Dean and east of the Middlewood Way

Significant Contribution: a large area of land. The south-eastern edge of the parcel adjoins the urban area. However, for the majority of the boundary, the River Dean separates it from the urban area and given the size of the parcel, the vast majority is open countryside. Although there is little opportunity for ribbon development to occur, there are very few urbanising influences within the parcel (with the notable exception of the pylons running through it) and it has a good sense of openness.

Contribution: although it does not have a significant role in separating Bollington from any other sizeable settlement, development here would significantly alter the settlement pattern and start creeping towards Whiteley Green.

Major Contribution: There is an existing strong boundary to the built development (River Dean). Once this is crossed there are very few weak boundaries to prevent long term encroachment over a wide area. There are few urbanising influences other than the pylons which cross the area and the whole parcel is relatively detached from the urban area.

Although the south-western edge is adjacent to the urban area, the River Dean separates it and the majority of the parcel is open countryside free from urbanising influences. There are weak boundaries to prevent large scale encroachment in the future.


85




BLG19 – Land between Middlewood Way, Lodge Brown and Macclesfield Canal

Significant Contribution: the parcel has fairly strong boundaries, except for the small boundary to the north which is weak. There is already some ribbon development extending along Adlington Road / Lodge Brown and the parcel plays an important role in preventing further ribbon development. Away from the part immediately adjoining the settlement, this parcel is fairly free from urbanising influences and has an open countryside feel.


Significant Contribution: there are a number of buildings in the southern area of the parcel closest to the edge of the settlement, but the majority of the area is largely free from urbanising influences and has a real open countryside feel. The eastern, southern and western boundaries are strong, being formed of the Middlewood Way (former railway line in cutting), the River Dean, a road and a canal. The parcel plays an important role in preventing further development extending some way out from Bollington into the open countryside

The parcel plays a significant role in preventing ribbon and other development extending out from Bollington into the open countryside. Away from the southernmost part of the parcel, it is fairly free from urbanising influences and has the feel of open countryside.


BLG20 – Land east of Lodge Brow and west of Macclesfield Canal

Contribution: The parcel is predominantly made up of a recreation ground and Swinerood Wood (protected woodland). There is some ribbon development along Adlington Road although there is limited opportunity for further ribbon development to occur. The parcel has very strong boundaries – the River Dean, Macclesfield Canal. In addition, the protected woodland would help to prevent unrestricted sprawl


Contribution: the parcel has strong and robust boundaries, and also includes a large area of protected woodland to contain development. There are already a number of buildings and urbanising influences along Adlington Road and around the recreation ground, although these are not present in the areas of woodland and beyond.

There are strong boundaries and protected woodland to prevent significant future encroachment. There is some ribbon development along Adlington Road but also limited potential for further ribbon development.

Contribution

BLG21 – Land north of Clarence Mill between Sugar Lane and Long Lane

Significant Contribution: The parcel is quite divorced from the urban area and any development would here would feel quite separate to the urban area. There are no strong boundaries near to the urban edge to prevent further urban expansion in the future. The parcel plays an important role in preventing ribbon development up Long Lane.


Significant Contribution: There is a limited amount of existing development around some of the edges but it is predominantly open agricultural land. It is a fairly large area and whilst further encroachment could be contained by the minor roads to the east and west, there is a very weak boundary to the north (private track and path) which would not be sufficient to prevent further encroachment long term

This parcel plays an important role in preventing the spread of Bollington outwards into the open countryside. The majority of the area is completely detached from the urban area and whilst the land generally rises towards the north-east there are no obvious features to limit northwards expansion in the longer term.


BLG22 – Land west of Long Lane to Nab Farm

Significant Contribution: although the topography of the land could pose challenges to development, the parcel plays an important role in preventing ribbon development up Long Lane and Shrigley Road. The hilly terrain is likely to prevent unlimited expansion outwards.

Significant Contribution: The parcel plays a role in maintaining the separation between Bollington and Pott Shrigley, although the topography and the Peak District National Park would prevent the two from ever merging.

Significant Contribution: the topography is likely to prevent unlimited expansion outwards but there are no clear defined boundaries. Other than some scattered farm buildings, the area is free from urbanising influences and very detached from the urban area.

Area of hilly open countryside largely detached from the urban area and free of existing development. The Green Belt plays an important role on preventing further ribbon development up Long Lane and Shrigley Road


cheshire east local plan evidence base › uploads › green_belt...7 cheshire east local plan...

Documents