gsag finished draft finished draft

75
1 Planning Appeal Reference Number :APP/ A0665/W/18/3196169 Planning Application Number: 17/01595/OUT Appeal by Marcol Homes Ltd and Vivio Developments Site Address: Land off John Street, Utkinton, Tarporley, CW6 0LP Comments regarding current planning issues which affect the appeal site, and comments about the Planning Appeal Statement and other documents submitted by the appellants In addition to my previous objections, I am now asking if the following comments about the current planning issues affecting the appeal site, the appellants’ Planning Appeal Statement (PAS) and other documents recently submitted by the appellant could also be taken into account. This submission is on behalf of the Utkinton Green Space Action Group, of which I am a member. The names and addresses of the members of this group are as follows: Mr. A. & Mrs K. Dahill, Bramblebank, John Street, Utkinton Mr. A . & Mrs E. Boardman, 7 Rowlands View, Utkinton Mr. S. & Mrs K. Platt, Bumblebee Hall, Northgate, Utkinton Mr. D. & Mrs J. Woodward, Beam End Cottage, Northgate, Utkinton Mr. G. Spencer & Mrs C. Weaver, 3 Northgate, Utkinton Mr. J. & Mrs A. Pownall, 5 Northgate, Utkinton This report is arranged as follows: Page 2 Section A- Utkinton and Cotebrook Neighbourhood Plan 4 Section B- Number of Houses permitted under policy DM24 (part 2) 4 Section C- Designation of Utkinton as a Local Service Centre 5 Section D- Comments on the Appellants’ Planning Appeal Statement

Upload: lediep

Post on 16-Feb-2019

239 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

1

Planning Appeal Reference Number :APP/ A0665/W/18/3196169Planning Application Number: 17/01595/OUT

Appeal by Marcol Homes Ltd and Vivio DevelopmentsSite Address: Land off John Street, Utkinton, Tarporley, CW6 0LP

Comments regarding current planning issues which affect the appeal site, and comments about the Planning Appeal Statement and other documents

submitted by the appellantsIn addition to my previous objections, I am now asking if the following comments about the current planning issues affecting the appeal site, the appellants’ Planning Appeal Statement (PAS) and other documents recently submitted by the appellant could also be taken into account.

This submission is on behalf of the Utkinton Green Space Action Group, of which I am a member. The names and addresses of the members of this group are as follows:

Mr. A. & Mrs K. Dahill, Bramblebank, John Street, UtkintonMr. A . & Mrs E. Boardman, 7 Rowlands View, UtkintonMr. S. & Mrs K. Platt, Bumblebee Hall, Northgate, UtkintonMr. D. & Mrs J. Woodward, Beam End Cottage, Northgate, UtkintonMr. G. Spencer & Mrs C. Weaver, 3 Northgate, UtkintonMr. J. & Mrs A. Pownall, 5 Northgate, Utkinton

This report is arranged as follows: Page 2 Section A- Utkinton and Cotebrook Neighbourhood Plan 4 Section B- Number of Houses permitted under policy DM24 (part 2) 4 Section C- Designation of Utkinton as a Local Service Centre 5 Section D- Comments on the Appellants’ Planning Appeal Statement 35 Section E – Comments on other documents submitted by the Appellants

52 Appendix 1-Extracts from list of questions for the Examinationin Public of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Part 2

54 Appendix 2-Extracts from SPD5 56 Appendix 3-Extract from Local Landscape Designations ASCV in Cheshire

West and Chester (2017) Appendix 4: Household Survey Report on Housing Need and

Appendix 5 :Housing Needs Report for Utkinton and Cotebrook Parish are in a separate document.

2

The following issues relate to new or updated information which is relevant to the proposed development , namely

(a) The emerging Utkinton and Cotebrook Neighbourhood Plan, which includes a recently commissioned independent housing needs survey for the Parish, which provides up to date evidence about affordable housing needs in the Parish (see section A below). The Visions and Objectives for this Neighbourhood Plan have now been agreed by the relevant parties and the Plan will be completed within a few months.

(b) the progression towards adoption of Part 2 of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan, which has now reached the Examination in Public stage. See sections B and C below.

Under s.216 of the NPPF the contents of both the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and Part 2 of the Local Plan now have significant weight.

A. Utkinton and Cotebrook Neighbourhood Plan

The Visions and Objectives of the Utkinton and Cotebrook Parish Neighbourhood Plan have already been accepted by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and the Utkinton and Cotebrook Parish Council.

As part of the Neighbourhood Plan , an independent housing needs survey has been necessarily undertaken by Cheshire Community Action, financed by Cheshire West and Chester Council. A copy of the Household Survey Report (“the Survey”) and the subsequent Housing Needs Report (“the Report”) are included in appendices 4 and 5 below .

This survey not only complies with the requirements of the Neighbourhood Plan preparation process, but it also complies with the requirements in policy DM24 (Rural Exception Sites) in Part 2 for housing needs surveys required to support applications for rural exception sites, as it is up to date, independent and was prepared in conjunction with the Parish Council.

(It has been noted that the list of questions for the forthcoming Examination in Public does not contain any questions relating to these requirements in policy DM24 , and hence it appears that the Examination in Public Inspector does not wish to query this part of the DM24 policy.)

In contrast, the appellants’ housing needs survey, upon which they are still relying, is out of date (prepared March 2016), was not conducted by or in conjunction with the Parish Council, and was not independently conducted.

The appellants’ survey was found to be statistically flawed and unreliable to the extent that, after discussions with the Council’s Housing Officer, the appellants initial assertion that 22 affordable houses were needed, the number was soon reduced to 7 affordable houses, based on the same survey.

Furthermore the results of several Parish Council housing needs surveys carried out between 2006 and 2017 consistently showed a need for a maximum of only 2 affordable (not intermediate as the appellants were proposing) units.

3

The recently commissioned housing needs survey and report are “stand- alone” documents which have been approved and accepted by all the parties involved in the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan.

This screen shot from page 17 of the Housing Survey Report on Housing Need, shows that when all the residents of the whole Parish who had expressed a need for a different type of housing (either now or within the next 5 years) were asked what tenure of new household they would require , nobody required social or affordable housing:

Therefore since there is no proven current need for affordable housing on the appeal site, no houses should be allowed on this site at all.

B. Number of Houses permitted under policy DM24 (Part 2)

Policy DM24’s guide number of “up to 10 dwellings” for the number of affordable houses that might be permitted on Rural Exception Sites adjacent to

4

Local Service Centres is exceeded by the appellants’ proposed development of 12 houses.

See also comments below in section C regarding whether Utkinton is a Local Service Centre or not.

C. Designation of Utkinton as a Local Service Centre

The appellants have stated in their Planning Appeal Statement that Utkinton is already a Local Service Centre.

However, the designation of Local Service Centres will only be confirmed when Part 2 of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan is adopted, and it is therefore premature to assume that Utkinton is a Local Service Centre and that the appeal site can consequently be considered to be a Rural Exception Site.

I note from the recently published list of questions to be considered by the Inspector at the forthcoming Examination in Public for the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Part 2 policies that several of the issues regarding the designation of Local Service Centres are going to be discussed. It is therefore apparent that the methodology for designation of Local Service Centres is still being debated , and that consequently neither Utkinton nor any other settlement can be said to be a Local Service Centre until the outcome of the Examination in public is known.

It is my contention that since Utkinton has no proper public transport at all, such settlements should not be designated as Local Service Centres since the lack of public transport means they are unsustainable locations. To designate such settlements as Local Service Centres would directly contradict both the NPPF’s sustainability policies , and the Council’s own Part 1 policy STRAT 1 (Sustainable Development) .

The questions that are due to be discussed at the forthcoming Examination in public which relate to this issue are as shown in appendix A: Extracts from the Inspector’s list of questions.

These questions cast doubt on whether Utkinton will or will not be designated as an Local Service Centre .

D. Comments about the Appellant’s Planning Appeal Statement

For ease of reference I will use the same numbering system as shown in the appellants’ Planning Appeal Statement. I have included references to sections from the appellants’ new Landscape and Visual Statement where the same issues have been raised.

5

2.2 Figure 5 does not show the current settlement boundary. The current boundary is shown on this map, which is an extract from the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan: Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies Map changes document:

The use of the phrase “the site has a frontage onto John Street” implies that it is possible to access the site from John Street, which it clearly isn’t due to the site ground level being 3-4m higher than John Street.

6

2.3 The sandstone retaining wall that runs the entire length of the appeal site

boundary on Northgate is an undesignated heritage asset and marks the natural and historic boundary of the village. See comments regarding the probable destruction of this wall in s. 3.3 below.

Existing retaining sandstone wall on Northgate boundary of appeal site

While sections 2.3-2.5 describe the land to the north, west and south of the appeal site, the PAS fails to mention that the land to the east of the site is, like the site itself, open countryside. This area looks like this:

7

The PAS also fails to show a clear photo of the appeal site itself as seen from the east. This is what it looks like ie an open field with fantastic long distance views:

Figure 2 of the PAS is labelled incorrectly – it shows the view of the appeal site from John Street, not North Brook Road.The view of the site from North Brook Road looks like this:

View of the adjacent fields on the sandstone ridge from the site, looking east

8

The view from John Street looks like this (appeal site ground level shown by red line.

2.7 The local shuttle bus service referred to has recently been reduced from 5 days a week to 3 days a week, and is no use for anyone needing to get

to any place of employment / education/ for a fixed appointment outside the village.

Appeal site ground level

9

2.9 and 2.10 The appellants have made almost no effort whatsoever to engage with the Utkinton and Cotebrook Parish Council or the local community as a whole, as they are obliged to do under policies SOC2 and RM24. The only “public consultation” during the application process was an to see a very limited number of residents , individually, strictly by appointment , at a time of day when many working residents would have been at work. There is already a wide range of market houses available in the village and its environs , and since any proposed market houses should only be allowed on the appeal site to cross-subsidise any needed affordable houses, this should mean that no market houses should be allowed at all .

3.3 Pedestrian site access is not mentioned here, and hence it is not clear whether the appellants now intend to construct the previously proposed new footway from the site entrance on Northgate to John Street or not. The Highways statement included in the application stated:Pedestrian and cycle access will be taken from the same location as the vehicular access. In addition, a 2m wide footway will be introduced on the southern side of Northgate between the proposed site access and John Street, providing prospective residents with a safe route to and from the site.”

and the following plan showing the proposed new footway was also included in the application, but in later plans (eg the revised site layout plan submitted in September 2017) this proposed new footway was omitted.

Paragraph 6.39 of the new Landscape and Visual Statement (see section E below) states

10

Whilst an opening would be made in the northern (sandstone retaining wall) boundary to facilitate the site access the stone could be reused to form a retained edge into the development thus preserving this element.

which seems to indicate that the developer has abandoned the previously proposed plan to install a proper pedestrian access to the site with associated new footway along the southern side of Northgate.

This means there would be no safe pedestrian access to the site, which would be particularly crucial if children were being encouraged to go there to use the proposed play area. The only people who would have safe access to the play areas would be those living in the new houses.Since the new vehicular access to the site would be very steep, and since Northgate is also very steep from its junction with John Street to the proposed new access, it would be particularly dangerous for pedestrians/ disabled people to have to walk/ be wheeled in the road around the proposed new entrance / the junction with Northgate. It would also be dangerous for drivers on the new access road and Northgate, particularly at the junction with John Street where the pedestrians may be crossing John Street.This lack of a safe pedestrian access contradicts both policy STRAT 10 and policy BE1(xiv) However, if such a new footway and pedestrian access was constructed it would necessitate the destruction of the entire length of the undesignated heritage asset sandstone retaining wall (and the mature hedge which grows on top of it) from the site entrance down to John Street.See comments regarding the importance of this wall in paragraph 4.0 of section E below.Both of these options are totally unacceptable .If it is the appellants intention to destroy the sandstone wall and hedge on Northgate, it is not true to say“All the existing trees and hedgerows within the site would be retained as part of the proposals”.See also 5.35 below regarding possible pedestrian access over Rose Farm Shop access drive.

3.5 This contradicts what the appellants’ previously stated on their application form, as can be seen from this screen shot thereof:

11

ie the application form says the houses comprise 7 intermediate (not affordable) houses and 5 market houses, but the appellants are now saying the 7 intermediate houses would be affordable properties. Consequently it is not clear what the applicants were or are currently proposing.When the application was being considered, the Council’s Housing Officer said that they ”... recommend that the applicant contact some registered providers active in Cheshire West and Chester to further determine the specification for delivery of appropriate affordable units.  “It is not known if the applicants done this and ascertained whether any provider would be prepared to buy the affordable houses if built, and hence whether they would be affordable in perpetuity as required under SOC 2.

12

4.11 See comments in section A and C above regarding the recently commissioned Housing Needs Survey and the designation of Local Service Centres.The proposed amount of market housing cannot be described in any way as “small and subsidiary”, being 5 very large houses with a total floor area that is nearly 200% of the total floor area of the proposed affordable houses.The appellants have not demonstrated that the proposed affordable houses would remain affordable in perpetuity, and cannot do so if they do not have a registered social landlord willing and able to buy the properties.The scheme would not be modest and in keeping with the form and character of the settlement and local landscape setting.

4.12 While STRAT 8 may indicate that provision in the rural area will be made for at least 4,200 houses , the same policy also says “The amount of development in each local service centre will reflect the scale and character of the settlement concerned and the availability of services, facilities and public transport.”

“Development should not exceed the capacity of existing services and infrastructure unless the required improvements can be made.”.

Following on from STRAT 8 , policy R1 in Part 2 states in the explanatory text that

“6.8 There are no individual housing requirements set for the local service centres as it is recognised that they have a limited level of sustainability and are not the most appropriate for significant new development.

Development may take place that is very limited in scale, meets a rural or other local housing need, or is identified in a neighbourhood plan. It is considered that the local community is best placed to understand the local needs in terms of supporting services or meeting a specific housing need, and local communities are encouraged, through preparing a neighbourhood plan, to take a holistic approach to meeting the future needs, providing the flexibility to shape their communities in a planned way.

Neighbourhood plans can enable sites to be identified and allocated for housing and other uses, that will support or enhance local services and provide community infrastructure..”

This is exactly what the community of Utkinton is doing through the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan.

13

4.16 and 4.17 The policies mentioned here all support the residents’ previous objections to this application, and the two previous planning applications from the appellants, that the proposed development is highly unsuitable due to the huge detrimental impact it would have on the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the site and the surrounding area.

4.18 The proposed development would in no way “preserve or enhance the character of features for which the ASCV has been designated” , but would do just the opposite by turning an open country field into a suburban housing estate in a highly prominent and visually sensitive area.

4.19 As discussed in section A above, until the outcome of the Examination in Public of Part 2 is known, it cannot be assumed that Utkinton is a Local Service Centre.

5.5 See point 4.19 above5.6 There is no current proven need for affordable housing in the Parish at all.5.7 Since no affordable housing is needed, the proposed development cannot

be now seen to be at all appropriate in terms of either the numbers or sizes of houses at all.

5.8 As stated above in s.5.7, the numbers of required affordable units is zero.The appellants’ “willingness to provide affordable housing” is based on the fact that they need to build affordable houses to stand a chance of being allowed to build any market houses “on the back of them” under the rural exception site policies.The appellants assertions that an increase in the supply of affordable homes would be beneficial for the village are not correct, as proven by the detailed analysis of house prices and incomes specifically within Utkinton and Cotebrook Parish which was included in the Report which accompanied the recent Housing Needs Survey.(See appendix 5 page 29). This report concluded that most privately rented houses in the Tarporley Ward area (which includes Utkinton) would be beyond the financial reach of people who had a household income that was at the lower quartile or less.Extract from page 29 of the Housing Needs Survey Report , July 2018:

14

15

While the above figures relate to private rents, even if “affordable” rents are considered , taking them to be 80% of private rents, the income required to rent a 1 bed affordable property would be £23,771 pa,2 bed affordable property would be £24,881 pa,3 bed affordable property would be £34,171 pa,4 bed affordable property would be £44,274 pa.This would mean that residents in the Utkinton and Cotebrook Parish with a median income might be able to afford a 1, 2 or 3 bed affordable house, but residents with a lower quartile income could still not afford to rent even a 1 bed “affordable” property.

16

It is likely that residents who would qualify for affordable housing would by definition be on lower than average incomes, probably at the lower quartile or lower level.It can clearly be seen therefore that the types of “affordable” accommodation that the appellant is proposing would not be affordable at all, especially since the proposed houses are 3 bed properties, and consequently the provision of such houses would not assist anyone who wanted to rent a truly affordable property.It therefore seems highly unlikely that a registered housing provider would be willing to purchase the proposed “affordable” properties if they were built, since they would not be able to let them at truly affordable rents. This would be in addition to the fact that the appellants have no current proof that anyone in the Parish actually wants an affordable property anyway.Since the appellants’ had not discussed the proposals with any registered housing provider before the ARC4 survey was conducted, the appellants have never made any possible rental figures available to residents for them to consider whether they could afford to rent one of the proposed affordable houses , and so any alleged expressions of interest when the ARC4 survey was conducted can only have been aspirational , and not based on financial facts.

5.9 On a site within a settlement boundary developers may try to reduce the proportion of affordable houses to market houses to maximise profits ,but in this case the opposite is true; the appeal site can only ever be considered to be a Rural Exception Site, and hence it is in the Developers’ financial interests to build as many affordable properties on the site as possible to enable them to assert that they need to build very nearly as many market houses as possible (ie the allegedly ”small and subsidiary” element of market housing) to subsidise the affordable properties , so that they can maximise their profits through the sale of much larger market houses.

5.10 Since there is no current proven demand for affordable houses the site cannot be developed as a Rural Exception Site.

5.12 The appellants’ reference to the Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment 2017 (HELAA) is largely irrelevant , as there is no proven need for affordable housing outside the village boundary, and hence none of the four sites mentioned , which are all outside the settlement boundary, could be considered to be Rural Exception Sites. Furthermore the appellant fails to mention one of the key caveats of the HELAA , which is stated very clearly in the Disclaimer on page 1:“The inclusion of a site, building or area of land in the completed HELAA does not imply that the Council will allocate the site(s) for development in the Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies. Further assessment of sites will be undertaken, taking account of relevant plans/programmes, evidence base studies and technical reports, informed by outcomes of the Habitats Regulations

17

assessment and Sustainability Statement (incorporating the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment) process.

The identification of potential sites within the final report of the HELAA, does not imply that the Council would necessarily grant planning permission for development on those sites. Sites are not assessed in terms of Local Plan policies and all planning applications for development will continue to be assessed on their merits against the appropriate development plan and material planning considerations.”

The appellants use of the phrase in sections 5.13- 5.19 that the four sites in the HELAA in Utkinton “are expected to deliver” a particular number of houses in each case is therefore very misleading, as planning policies would prevent any of these sites being developed at all unless there is ever a proven need for affordable housing adjacent to the village.

5.14 Even the appellants acknowledge that the existing facilities within the village may not be able to cope with additional development in the village, but Utkinton Primary School is already oversubscribed , and the lack of public transport to/from the village, and the limited range of services and, in particular, employment opportunities , renders the village unsustainable and incapable of supporting any more housing.

5.19 There is no evidence or proof that this area floods.5.29 For ease of reference I will comment on the Landscape Appraisals referred

to in this section E later in this document.5.30 See comments in paragraph 3.3 above regarding vehicular and pedestrian

site access.5.31 The vast majority of trees on the site are protected by a Tree Preservation

Order and cannot therefore be removed. The trees, mature hedge and shrubs on the northern boundary of the site adjoining Bumblebee Hall are all on the Bumblebee Hall site, and therefore the developers would have no right to remove any of this vegetation.The newly proposed hedge along the south-eastern boundary of the site will still not prevent Rose Farm Shop from being totally boxed in by the 2m high garden fences which the new residents of the market houses would undoubtedly erect along the border between their back gardens and the farm shop site for privacy and security. These fences would completely destroy the views of and over the site from Rose Farm Shop and Café.The ambience of the farm shop and the café in particular would be completely changed and lost , as at present customers of the shop and café go there specifically to enjoy the light airy rural views of and across the appeal site, to see the grazing animals, and to enjoy the tranquil rural atmosphere. Section 7.17 of the appellants’ Landscape and Visual Statement saysViews form the Farm Shop over the site would be restricted but would be replaced by the seasonal and potential wildlife interest of a mixed native

18

hedge and a high quality residential scheme containing elements of the local vernacular.

How could the current views of and across a delightful open sunny field , mature trees and grazing animals be compensated for by views of a 2m high fence at close proximity, and views of the upper floors and roofs of 2-storey houses beyond?

5.32 The use of the word “urban “ in the context of the area surrounding is incorrect - this is a small village set in open countryside in an ASCV. The houses on Northgate and John Street have almost no impact at all on the landscape of the appeal site because the appeal site’s elevation is so much higher than the elevation of these roads.Here is the view across the site looking north towards Northgate:

The view across the proposal site looking north towards Northgate. The roofs of the numbered and named houses there can hardly be seen, especially Bumblebee Hall, due to the large height difference between the site and Northgate.

Ridge of Bumblebee Hall roof

1. 3 5

Chimney of Beam End Cottage

19

The presence of Rose Farm and shop on the third border of the site cannot be considered to be “ urban” . It only attracts low levels of cars during shop opening hours only, and the tractors which are necessarily used for the farm’s operations create only low levels of rural agricultural noises, not “urban noise”. All these noises on the farm and farm shop site stop after the shop closes for the day/ in early evenings, and the tranquillity of the appeal site really is not reduced by these vehicular movements.The appeal site itself , however, only has vehicles on it about twice a year when the farmer cuts the boundary hedges, but for the other 363 days a year it is a tranquil , beautiful open field, populated only by a few grazing animals , and which is completely dark and silent at night. The proposed development would completely destroy this peaceful ambience by turning the site from a beautiful open field into a housing estate, lit up 24 hours a day, with noise from residents and their vehicles, delivery vehicles, bin lorries etc being emitted 24 hours a day all year round. See comments in section 5.45 below regarding loss of tranquillity.

The view across the proposal site looking north west towards John Street. It can be seen that the houses on John Street are barely visible at all and have no impact on the site at all, and that there are spectacular views as far as the Clwydian Hills 16 miles away.

20

5.33 The appellant cannot explain how building twelve 21st century houses on an elevated open field outside the village boundary would “strengthen local architectural distinctiveness”. The proposed houses would, in particular, overshadow and dominate Bumblebee Hall, a Locally Important Building and one of the village’s oldest and most treasured sandstone houses. See “Comments on Heritage Statement” in section 4.0 of section E below.

5.34 The views from this site are truly panoramic and are one of the main reasons why this site and a considerable area around it have been included by impartial landscape experts in the ASCV. The appellants statement that that no views of the site are gained from the Sandstone Trail is misleading . Since the Sandstone Trail is at a lower elevation than the appeal site, walkers on it look up to the village, and while the ground level of the appeal site is currently hidden behind the houses on Rowlands View and the mature trees on the western boundary of the appeal site when viewed from the west, the proposed houses would appear much higher than any of the existing houses , they would be a very prominent intrusion on the skyline , as shown on this photograph:

View from Wood Lane close to the Sandstone Trail, with the height of the proposed new houses shown by the red line.

21

The appellants state in 4.15 of their new Landscape and Visual Statement (see section E below) that

The overall Management strategy (for the Landscape Character Area 2c Eddisbury area) includes ‘conserve the prominent and simple skyline and panoramic views form the ridge’.

The skyline would not be broken by the proposed development ,

and in paragraph 6.27 that development within the site would not sit above the ridge when viewed from the plain to the west.

But this is clearly not true and can be seen from the above photograph. This skyline on the sandstone ridge is one of the most important features of this ASCV as noted by the Landscape experts who wrote the Local Landscapes Designations: Areas of Special County Value in Cheshire West and Chester 2017 document.

The Statement of Importance in that document states that the ASCV is :“Visually and perceptually some of the most important landscape within CWaC due to the relatively pronounced contrast in elevation and land cover in relation to the lower-lying pastoral landscapes of the Cheshire Plain to the east and west. This gives rise to a prominent but rounded skyline visible from a wide area that presents extensive views from a variety of points upon it.”

It goes on to state that some of the Special Landscape Qualities of the ASCV are :

• Away from the main A54 and A556, tranquil rural character is underpinned by the absence of significant settlement across the ASCV.

• Sandstone walls are occasionally characteristic features within the Sandstone Ridge landscape.

The ‘Sandstone Trail’ runs along part of the ridge with other Public Rights of Way and permissive paths forming a dense network of access.

Spectacular panoramic views from the ridge across Delamere Forest and beyond to the northeast, over the open plains to the south-east, to the Peckforton Hills to the south, and to north Wales to the west.

The report then lists several criteria with summary descriptions all of which apply to the appeal site and the surrounding area:

Criteria Summary Description

22

Distinctiveness Distinct, rolling and elevated topography with complex incised valleys across the ridge with pronounced slopes to the east and west

Raised elevation and low density of development andquiet lanes serve to provide contrast with surrounding more settled landscapes.

Perceptual character

Contrasts between sense of elevation and openness upon the ridge to an atmospheric, enclosed, (perceptually) less managed landscape within Delamere.

Broadleaved and mixed treescapes across the ridge and in Delamere Forest present strong seasonal changes and later the degree of enclosure.

Relative tranquillity away from neighbouring settlements and the main road and rail corridors which bisect the ridge north of Kelsall.

Low density of settlement, buildings and minor roads contribute to ‘deeper’ rural character.

Rolling topography rarely affords a sense of exposure apart from along the scarp slopes such as Eddisbury and where change in elevation is most obvious.

The relative elevation of the ridge is emphasised by frequent expansive vistas in all directions from various points in the ASCV.

Extensive Public Rights of Way network allows opportunities for direct experience of the contrasting

special qualities of the ASCV.Landscape and scenic quality

Relatively high, rolling farm and woodland landscape with limited incongruous features.

Attractive contrast between wooded valley sides and open rolling tracts of farmland across the ridgeline.

Prominent, distinctive, rolling skyline and inter-locking outline of the wooded slopes help enclose the landscape at times and add seasonal change.

Sandstone walls are characteristic features within theSandstone Ridge landscape.

Function The ridge acts as a significant landmark across the centre of the borough, serving a strong visual reference point for much of the east and west Cheshire plan and settlement across it.

Important network of Public Rights of Way network including the Sandstone Trail.

Important elevated viewpoints along the ridge.

5.35 The landscape mitigation plan does not show a new footway on Northgate, and as discussed in paragraph 3.3 above, and without such a footway there would be no safe pedestrian access to the site.Furthermore, all of the house plots would undoubtedly have fences between and around them , which, in addition to the two storey houses themselves, would further urbanise the site and completely change its character.

23

The “potential connection to John Street from proposed open space” is an entirely new idea, not included in the application. Such a pedestrian access route , which would inevitably be used by children going to and from the open space , would be very dangerous as it would lead onto the steep vehicular access to the farm and farm shop , right at its junction with John Street, which is on a blind summit . Since there is no pavement on the east side of John Street at this point, children would have to cross the road at this point , which would be extremely dangerous . This photo shows the junction and where the pedestrian access might be, if the Rose Farm owner allowed it:

This photo shows the blind summit on the lane approaching the village from the south, with the entrance to Rose Farm being situated just on the right hand side at the top:

Farm and Farm Shop entrance

Play area

Pedestrain access

route to play area

24

And this photo shows the entrance to the farm / farm shop as approached from the north:

It can be seen from this photo how it would be dangerous for pedestrians (especially children) to cross John Street at this point.The construction exclusion zone on line of root protection zone is only to be expected since the Council’s Tree Officer has previously insisted upon it since the trees on the western boundary are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.The proposed play area would be at the top of a very steep drop at the corner of John Street and Northbrook, which would not be safe.

Entrance to Rose Farm

Farm/ shop entrance

Crossing point

25

As several of the planted areas and the public spaces would not be within the curtilege of any of the house plots, who would own and maintain these areas?The proposed mitigation ideas would still not address the fact that the proposed development would constitute a large mass of building, fences, street lights and roads which would together change the landscape of the site and the surrounding area completely . The development would dominate and urbanise this open country field in this important part of the ASCV, and would be a complete blot on the landscape. The appellants state in 6.32 of their Landscape and Visual Statement thatChanges to the setting of the village from footpaths 15 and 17 to the east of the site would be very limited. A small element of new housing in front of existing views of the roofs of properties on John Street would be added between the form of the farm shop and the wider built form extending to the north.

This is not true. The proposed houses (which would be much higher than the houses on John Street behind them) and the fences between them would form a significant block of development which would totally obscure the panoramic long distance views from footpaths 15 and 17 on the sandstone ridge over the site across the Cheshire Plain to the Clwydian Hills , as shown in this photograph, with the size of the proposed development shown by the red rectangle:

View from the footpaths to the east of the site looking west to the site and towards the Clwydian Hills

These extensive views are one of the highly valued characteristics of this ASCV, and hence the appellants statement in 6.42 of their Landscape Statement that There would be some very limited effects on some aspects of the views out over the site from the short sections of the local footpaths to the east of the site. However these views are not particularly representative of the extensive panoramic long distance views that are characteristic of other parts of the ASCV.

26

is clearly wrong.

5.36 The landscape character of the site itself would be completely changed from an open country field occupied by only a few grazing animals, which is tranquil during the day, and silent and completely dark at night, to a suburban estate occupied by an estimated 50-60 people with an estimated 20-25 vehicles (it being necessary for every adult to have a car in Utkinton since there is no proper public transport), lit up 24 hours a day, and with traffic and residential noises 24 hours a day.The landscape character of the surrounding area, all of which is in the ASCV, would be irrevocably damaged by the urbanisation of this site, as the proposed development would obliterate the highly valued views of, from and across the site, and would be a prominent eyesore on the sandstone ridge.The appellants assertion that “Utkinton is a relatively large village within the ASCV which could accommodate further development within the site area immediately adjacent to other built form. “

is wrong as firstly Utkinton is a small village, and the proposed development would not be immediately adjacent to other built form as the site is so elevated above the rest of the village that it constitutes a completely separate and different area, which is reflected by where the village boundary has historically and recently been drawn.

The appellants statement that

“The special qualities of the wider ASCV and the characteristics and features for which it has been designated would not be harmed by the development of this site which forms part of a village located within the ASCV. “ is also completely wrong for all the reasons stated in s.5.35 above. The site does not form part of the village at all, being located outside the village boundary.

5.37 See comments in section E below.5.38 The application contradicts this, saying

“ The proposed buildings are all domestic in scale with two storeys and amaximum ridge height of 8m, thereby allowing for dual-pitched traditionalroofs. They would include detached, semi-detached and attached units.”This means the houses would be very dominant on the site and the skyline, and would tower over the houses on Northgate and John Street, causing significant loss of light and privacy.Furthermore, as the appellants note themselves in paragraph 7.5 of their new Landscape and Visual Statement ( see section E below): Slightly beyond the (John Street) boundary is a slight ridge which also restricts direct views over the site area from John Street,

27

which is true – the site continues to rise and crown further away from both the John Street and Northgate boundaries, meaning that the ground level of the proposed houses would be higher than even the site level at these boundaries, Since paragraph 6.7 of the Landscape and Visual Statement states:

it is anticipated that the proposed houses would be constructed largely at gradethis means that the ground level of the houses would not be reduced by ground works in any way , and consequently the houses would be at a height equivalent to a four-storey house on John Street or Northgate due to the elevation of the site.

The size of the five proposed market houses in particular would be totally disproportionate and out of keeping with the site and its surroundings. Each of the five houses would have a bigger floor area than any other house in the nearby area of the village, and five such houses would totally dominate both the site and its surroundings.

5.39 The proposed houses would be domineering and would not “respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers” at all, causing a huge loss of privacy, creating noise and light pollution for the residents of Northgate and John Street in particular, especially for Bumblebee Hall, which would be completely overshadowed and boxed in by the proposed houses and fences, being as it is at such a lower elevation than the appeal site. See comments in section E of this report regarding heritage assets.The level of “visual amenity “ to which the appellants refer would be that of a sub-urban housing estate, which would be totally incongruous on this open field in an ASCV.

5.42 The proposed number of dwellings on the site had to be reduced from the numbers shown in the appellants’ first application because it was conclusively proven by Dr. David Warne, a Statistician of international standing, that the appellants’ ARC4 housing needs survey was extremely flawed and statistically unreliable, and hence the number of respondents to the survey who had allegedly expressed an interest in affordable housing on the site (even though they had no idea what rent such properties might cost) was soon reduced from 22 to a mere 7.

5.43 This is not correct – infill is defined in SOC 2 as“ the filling of a small gap (up to 2 dwellings) in an otherwise built-up frontage in a recognised settlement.”Since there is no built up frontage on either John Street or Northgate along the site boundary, and consequently there are no gaps to fill, the proposed scheme involves 12, and not 2, houses , and the site is not in a recognised settlement , the proposed scheme very obviously does not constitute infilling.

28

Furthermore planning consent for Rose Farm Shop was only granted because of the need to retain a shop in the village following the closure of the only other shop in 1996 , and the site of the shop was not included inside the village boundary then , and has still not been included under the latest Part 2 map changes, and hence it remains in open countryside. The predominant surrounding land type is that of the land to the east of the site, which is open sloping fields on the sandstone ridge, as discussed in section 2.3 above.

5.45 I agree with the Council’s Landscape Officer entirely over the loss of tranquillity that the proposed development would cause. Tranquillity is one of the key characteristics of this ASCV for which it is so highly valued: “Relative tranquillity away from neighbouring settlements and the main road and rail corridors which bisect the ridge north of Kelsall.”

The appellants’ comments regarding the tranquillity of the site in section 6.37 of the Landscape and Visual Statement:“In terms of tranquility the site is located immediately adjacent to existing houses, and the Rose Farm Shop complex which is a busy commercial enterprise accessed via the main road through the village which also lies immediately adjacent to the western boundary. “

is misleading in that the site is not located immediately adjacent to the existing housing on John Street and Northgate due to the elevation of the site, the “main road” referred to is in fact a narrow “C” class country lane with passing places, and which is again situated at a much lower level than the appeal site, and which consequently has very little impact on the character of the site.

During the day this site is peaceful and calm, and at night it is silent and completely dark.

The defining land use in Utkinton itself may be “predominantly residential dwellings” but the appeal site is not in Utkinton, and is completely separate from it due to its elevation.

5.46 The only reason the number of proposed houses has been reduced in the current application is because the appellants could not prove a need for any more than 7 affordable houses, and not in some effort to “ensure that the proposed scale respects the existing settlement of Utkinton” at all. However, since there is no current need for affordable housing, no development should be allowed on the site at all.

5.48 The proposed layout of the appeal site should not be considered against the layout of the existing residential areas in Utkinton, as those residential areas are within the village boundary and the appeal site is outside the boundary at a much higher elevation.

5.49 This is irrelevant as the site is in open countryside outside the village.

29

5.51 As the appellants have noticed, the properties on Rowlands View (ie the length of John Street situated to the west of the appeal site) are all well set back from the road. They are also at a lower elevation than the appeal site, and they are hardly visible looking west across the appeal site and hence they have hardly any influence on the character of the appeal siteThe houses on Big Field Lane are not visible from the appeal site as they are situated at a lower elevation down the hill behind the houses on Rowlands View.

5.52 The mature properties on Northgate best define the character of this part of the village , and their heritage value would be severely damaged by boxing them in by a modern suburban estate.

Lying immediately to the north of the proposal site, Northgate has been the natural boundary of the village for centuries, being as it is, substantially lower than the proposal site. On Northgate there are some of the village’s best heritage asset houses, namely Thatched Cottage (Grade 2 listed) and Bumblebee Hall, a Locally Important Building, which is an excellent example of a sandstone cottage which are deemed to be a key characteristic of Sandstone Ridge Area in the Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment.

Thatched Cottage Grade 2 Listed, Bumblebee Hall , a Locally

Built early 18th Century Important Building

Primrose Cottage, Wayside Cottage and Beam End Cottage are also of significant historical importance on this lane.

30

5.53 No – the pattern of development within the village is a completely separate issue, and the village settlement boundary has been drawn where it is ie excluding the vastly elevated appeal site, for very good reasons.

5.54 I agree with the Council’s Landscape Officer’s opinion that “built development on this site will form a prominent feature that will obscure the extensive panoramic views toward the Clwydian hills visible on the site and from adjacent footpaths.”

Quarrybank

Northgate

Bumblebee Hall

Primrose Cottage & Wayside

CottageThatched Cottage

Beam End Cottage

1838 Tithe Map of Utkinton

Primrose Cottage, Wayside Cottage and Beam End Cottage are also of significant historical importance on this lane.

John Street

31

Rose Farm is a working farm with tractors and livestock which produce rural noises and smells, the close proximity of which any new residents of the proposed development may well object to .The proposed houses would not “been seen against the backdrop of ... the properties on (Upper) Northgate” at all, as these properties are at a considerable distance and different height to the appeal site, and are screened by the mature trees which are situated at the top end of Lower Northgate and around the garden of Thatched Cottage on Northgate. Two storey houses on a site that is greatly elevated above the houses which are on John Street and Utkinton (to the extent that the proposed houses would be the equivalent of 4-storey houses from the ground level of these roads) cannot possibly “nestle between the neighbouring areas”. The proposed houses would dominate the landscape.The appellants final comment in this section that“Although at points the dwellings may alter the existing built form slightly the end result of providing affordable housing on the site should override any concerns.”is wrong on two counts:(i) the existing “built” form is non-existent on the appeal site as it is an open field, and the site would be completely changed into a sub-urban estate , and (ii) the end result of providing affordable housing is not relevant , as there is no proven need for such housing.

5.55 This site is completely dark at night because it is open countryside outside the village boundary . The existence of 12 houses and street lighting would completely change this. The comment regarding curtains and blinds is ridiculous – residents cannot be expected to close curtains and blinds to prevent light pollution!The comparison with the street lighting that is on John Street , Northgate and Big Field Lane is irrelevant as these roads and their lighting are within the village and at a much lower elevation and the appeal site is in open countryside.

5.59 There is no proven need for any affordable housing, Utkinton is not a sustainable location at all, having no proper public transport, an over-subscribed primary school, very few of the essential services and facilities that are needed on a day – to- day basis, and extremely few employment opportunities. The proposal would not “sit comfortably within the existing landscape setting” at all, but would destroy the tranquil ambience and highly valued views of and from this precious part of the Sandstone Ridge ASCV , by turning it into a totally incongruous sub-urban housing estate.

6.0 The planning cases to which the appellants refer as “precedent cases” are irrelevant for the following reasons.

32

APP/A0665/w/15/3140241 – RudheathRudheath is defined in the Local Plan as being part of Northwich (ie one of the four key urban areas within Cheshire West and Chester). The appeal site is not a rural exception site, nor is it in an ASCV, being only in an Area of Significant Local Environmental Value (8E Dane Valley).

It can be seen from this plan how close the site is to the centre of Northwich, how it is very close to the A556 trunk road and mainline railway line:

The site

Rudheath is a sustainable settlement , having a wide range of services and amenities , regular bus services, easy access to Northwich railway station, and many employment opportunities, including at the strategic employment location of Gadbrook Park which is located just to the south of the A556.

The characteristics of the 8E Dane Valley ASLV area (as defined in SPD5) are completely different from the characteristics of the Delamere/Utkinton ASCV. (Please see the extract from SPD5 included in Appendix 2.)

The inspector for the above appeal acknowledged in s.48 of the Conclusion of the Appeal Decision that

“Having regard to the conflict with STRAT 9 (Green belt and Rural area) and Policy GS5 I conclude that the proposal would be contrary to the

33

development plan when considered as a whole. However that conflict would clearly be outweighed by the significant benefits of the proposal with regard to the provision of market and affordable housing within Northwich ..........I therefore conclude that the appeal should succeed.”

i.e. the necessity to allow housing development within Northwich obviously outweighed the need to preserve the rural area.

Utkinton, however, is completely different to this site, and any other urban area, being a small unsustainable village which may not even be designated as a Local Service Centre.

APP/A0665/w/15/3140241 – Moulton

This application and appeal were considered in 2012/2013 .

Moulton is a much bigger settlement than Utkinton, and is sustainable having a wide range of services and facilities including a frequent bus service which enables residents to travel to Crewe and Northwich.

It is also very close to the larger settlement of Davenham , which has an even greater range of facilities, and both villages are only a short distance from Northwich .

All of the above render Moulton completely different from Utkinton in nature.

Additionally Moulton is not in an area of ASCV, only an ASLV, (part of the 4E area, The East Winsford Undulating Enclosed Farmland ), the key characteristics of which are described in SPD5 as shown in Appendix 2 of this document ). These characteristics are completely different to the characteristics of the area around and including Utkinton, and hence no comparison can be made regarding the landscape value of the sites.

Furthermore, the appeal inspector who decided the appeal for this site stated in his conclusion that

“78. Having regard to the planning obligation and conditions that could be attached to a planning permission to mitigate and control aspects of the scheme, and to the reduced weight that can as indicated be attached to certain policies in the absence of a 5-year supply of housing land in the District, I have found that the proposed development would cause only limited harm and policy conflict. This would be outweighed by the contribution that the development would make towards meeting the need for housing, including affordable housing, in the area arising from national policy and the Council’s social and economic objectives.”

i.e. the priority in this case (at the expense of the landscape policies) was to try to respond to the considerable pressure that existed at the time to assist the national and local objectives to have at least a 5 year housing land supply.

The Cheshire West and Chester Housing Land Monitor 2017-2018 states

34

that Cheshire West and Chester had a housing land supply of 8 years at 1st

April 2018, as can be seen from this extract from that document:

Consequently no argument can be brooked that there is now a deficit in the housing land supply for the Cheshire West and Chester area.

In conclusion, both these appeals are totally dissimilar to the current Utkinton appeal for many reasons, and should therefore be ignored.

However, the planning applications and appeals to which I referred in my previous objections are infinitely more relevant in that they all involved sites within or adjacent to the village, and which were all in the same ASCV as the appeal site. For reference:

Application 13/03690/ FUL,

Application 14/00905/OUT ,

Pre-application Submission 15/00971/PREAPP,

Appeal APP/A0665/W/16/3163763

7.3 The appellants statement has not proved that the proposed development is in keeping with the local landscape setting at all, in fact it has proved the exact opposite.

E Comments regarding the other documents submitted by the appellant as part of this application/ appeal

(i) 001kc Hearing Statement - Landscape and Visual Statement

I have only commented on the issues from this document which have not already been raised above , to avoid repetition.

This landscape and visual statement was issued on 19th February 2018,

35

and since Pegasus only became involved with the proposed development in early 2018 this means that the writer of this report must have visited the appeal site and surrounding area during January/ early February 2018, which was a very poor time of year to observe the highly valued landscape qualities of the site and the surrounding area.

However, as residents of the village for many years the members of the Utkinton Green Space Action Group have all seen, understood and appreciated the landscape value of the appeal site, the surrounding countryside and heritage assets of the area throughout the seasons for many years.

APPENDIX 4: ‘Delemere/Utkinton ASCV’ (Pages 27 to 32) from ‘Local Landscape Designations -Areas of Special County Value’ Cheshire West and Chester Council (June 2017) Comment: This is not the correct extract from the Local Landscape Designations ASCV 2017 document at all, as it shows the Beeston / Peckforton / Bolesworth ASCV, not the Delamere/ Utkionton ASCV. I attach the correct map and descriptive text for the Delamere/ Utkinton ASCV in Appendix 3 of this document.

APPENDIX 5: Landscape Mitigation Plan (Drawing ref P17-2923.001) Comment: Already discussed in section 5.35 above

E 1.0 The appeal site now

The appeal site is an elevated field outside the settlement boundary in open countryside in an ASCV. Due to the site’s elevation (of 3-4m) above Northgate (to the north ) and John Street (to the west), these roads and the houses thereon have very little impact on the character of the site.

The appellants comments that (4.6 ) The application site is bounded by existing residential development to

the north and west, (6.28) The proposed site sits between the farm shop, wrapped by existing development to the north and west and the remainder of the village, and (6.34) The character of the site whist currently comprising of an agricultural field is heavily influenced by the surrounding townscape, wrapping around the site on all sides.

are not accurate , since these comments imply that the site is constrained or restricted by the presence of the nearby roads and the buildings thereon, but the elevation of the site renders it a completely separate entity from the built part of the village. The settlement boundary map excludes the appeal site and the farm/ farm shop from the village.There is no “townscape” in this area, even in the settlement, never mind outside it (as the appeal site is). Only two of the appeal site boundaries (out of four) (north and west ) have roads nearby , with

36

the third site boundary being a farm/ farm shop, and the fourth boundary (which has the biggest influence on the character of the site) being similar elevated open country fields on the sandstone ridge, so the site is definitely not “wrapped on all sides by the surrounding townscape”.Section 4.3 statesWhile the appellants appear to acknowledge that the site has typical and valued features of the ASCV:

(6.7) the landform of rising ground with local undulations is typical of the surrounding area,

and that

The banked nature of the site perimeter retained by local stone walls is locally distinct element.

and that

(6.39) Sandstone walls, identified as an ‘occasional characteristic feature within the Sandstone ridge landscape’ bound the western boundary and the northern boundary of the site.

they then contradict themselves by saying

(6.35) In terms of local distinctiveness there is little represented by the site that is particularly local other than the Sandstone retaining walls around the site perimeter.

The site’s local distinctiveness is also defined by the fact that it is an elevated open field on the sandstone ridge with fantastic open and long distance views of both the Peckforton Hills and across the Cheshire Plain to the Clwydian Hills. These characteristics are key characteristics of the Delamere/ Utkinton ASCV and are highly valued as such.

The sandstone retaining wall on Northgate is an undesignated Heritage Asset.

The appellants’ statement that

(4.6) There is a small collection of older traditional houses along Northgate, which include the property Bumble Bee Hall, a sandstone house with a date stone of 1750. None of these older buildings are listed

is wrong. Thatched Cottage is Grade 2 Listed, and Bumblebee Hall is a Locally Important Building.

See paragraph 5.45 in section D above for comments on the tranquillity of the site.

37

E 2.0 The impact of the proposed development on the site

See also paragraph 5.36 in section D above.

The appeal site would be completely changed by the proposed development from an elevated field in open countryside in an ASCV to a sub-urban housing estate.The proposed mitigation efforts mentioned in section 2.7 cannot detract

from the fact that twelve 2- storey houses (including 5 very large market houses) , with associated roadways, drives, street lighting and fences are being proposed on an open elevated country field in an ASCV. The proposed development would have a huge impact on the landscape character of not only the appeal site, but for a large area around the site, all of which is also open countryside in an ASCV.

See paragraph 5.38 in section D above regarding the height and overall size of the proposed houses, ground levels etc.

The appellants reference to the inclusion of an area of public open space (4.10) fails to mention that there is no pedestrian access to the site , and so the open space would only be safely accessible for the residents of the new development. See paragraphs 3.3 and 5.35 in section D above.The appellants note in 6.25 that The sensitivity of the site and the immediate surrounds are judged to be high. The proposed development would result in a notable change to the character of the site, (within its boundaries). Effects relate predominantly to a change in the current land use from an undeveloped agricultural field to a residential development The sensitivity of character has been assessed as high, the changes to character at a site level are judged to be high resulting in a major effect. Effects on the character of the landscape immediately surrounding the site primarily to the east are judged to be high to medium resulting in a major/moderate effect.

which directly contradicts what they said in 5.11 that

Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be some adverse landscape and visual effects on the character of the site these would be very local and contained.

E 3.0 The impact of the proposed development on the surrounding landscape, the ASCV, the skyline and views from public footpaths.

The appellants acknowledge in 6.25 that The sensitivity of the site and the immediate surrounds are judged to be high..... Effects on the character of the landscape immediately surrounding the site primarily to the east are judged to be high to medium resulting in a major/moderate effect.

Having acknowledged the true effect that the proposed development

38

would have, how can the appellants go on to try to justify their proposed development in this very sensitive landscape area?

See comments in paragraph 5.38 of section C above regarding the detrimental impact the proposed houses would have on the skyline when viewed from the Sandstone Trail and the plain to the west of the village.

See comments in paragraph 5.35 of section C above regarding the detrimental impact that the proposed houses would have on the long distance views over the site looking west, which are such a highly valued characteristic of the Delamere/ Utkinton ASCV.In 6.30 the appellants state To the south of the village John Street lies within a sunken tree lined lane. Any views of the village are restricted until the viewer is opposite the ribbon development extending down the western side of the road. Travelling northwards, views are gained of the trees on the western boundary of the site and the housing to the west. Direct views over the grassland cover of the site are restricted by a hedgerow above the stone banked entrance to the Farm Shop and associated signage.

This is not correct .Direct views of the site are limited from John Street by the fact that the site is so much higher than it, and consequently any buildings and fences constructed on the site would tower over the road and the houses on the west side of John Street , as shown by the appellants own photographs VP6:

It can also be seen from the following photo how light currently streams from the site through the leaves of the TPO’d trees onto John

39

Street and the houses situated there. A lot of this natural light would be blocked by the proposed buildings.

The appellants’ statement in section 6.33 that

From the entrance to the farm shop the settlement would appear to come closer to the farm shop complex which already forms part of the village.

is wrong in that neither the farm and farm shop nor the appeal site are within the settlement, and only the proposed development would appear to “come closer” (ie box in) the farm shop as the houses on Northgate aren’t visible across the appeal site from the farm/ shop entrance because they are at a much lower elevation.

The appellants’ statement in 6.41 that

View looking south along John Street

40

In relation to the special qualities of the ASCV detailed above, the proposed development would do nothing to harm the elevated ground, prominent skyline, tranquillity, sunken lanes and rolling topography of the area. These elements would be preserved.

This is not true; the elevated ground would be changed from a open field in open countryside to a sub-urban housing estate , with houses dominating the skyline and blocking the highly valued views, the tranquillity of the site would be destroyed by the noise of residents, their vehicles, bin lorries, delivery lorries and light pollution day and night all year round.

In 5.9 the appellants quote Policy STRAT 9:

Development must be of an appropriate scale and design to not harm the character of the countryside.

Building a sub-urban housing estate on an elevated open field in an ASCV ( where the views from and to sites on the Sandstone Ridge are so highly regarded by both the residents and by Landscape professionals) will harm the character of the countryside. There can be no “appropriate scale and design” for a development on such a highly sensitive open green field in an ASCV like the appeal site.

The appellants’ assertion in 6.34 that The proposed development would appear as a part of Utkinton and not extend out from the existing areas of housing.

is wrong. The proposed houses would be a separate prominent housing estate outside both the council-drawn and natural village boundary, and would extend out from the existing housing.

The appellants state in 6.43 that

The remainder of the ASCV would continue to function post development as it currently does, the site is not essential to the ASCV and is closely related to the existing built form of the village.

This is not true. The site is an entirely separate entity to the built form of the village , by way of its elevation and the neighbouring open fields, and it is outside the village boundary . Why would the Landscape experts (who obviously considered the matter in an impartial and hence more accurate manner!) have included Utkinton and the surrounding area in the ASCV in the first place if it did not have so many of the highly valued characteristics and features of the ASCV, which are considered to be amongst the most important features of the Cheshire West and Chester landscape ?

41

E 4.0 The impact of the proposed development on nearby houses and heritage assets

In 7.5 the appellants stateViews over the site from properties to the west are partially screened by the elevated ground and stonewall retained banking on the site perimeter, this screening is reinforced by the existing hedgerow and existing large mature TPO’ed trees located above the bank.

However, due to the elevation of the site, the proposed houses would tower over and dominate the houses on John Street and the residents would suffer loss of light and privacy.See comments in paragraph 5.38 of section D regarding the height of the proposed houses. Section 7.7 statesFrom properties to the north, views towards the site are currently restricted by intervening garden vegetation to the east and the existing hedgerow and banked wall to the west. Views of the upper portions of the Rose farm Shop can be gained from this orientation. (as illustrated in Viewpoint 9 of the Ryder LVIA).

Current views of the site from the properties to the north are restricted because they are at a much lower elevation than the site (especially Bumblebee Hall). This means that the proposed buildings, fences etc would tower over these properties causing loss of light and privacy . See further comments below about Bumblebee Hall in particular.

7.7 continuesThe proposed site access is located on this boundary, construction of the site entrance would require the removal of a section of hedgerow and banked wall which would result in the opening up of views into the site from the north. Partial views of the farm shop would be replaced with views of the proposed development. The houses on Northgate currently only have a distant view of the single storey Rose Farm Shop from their 1st floor windows, and it is at distance much further away from Northgate than the proposed 2- storey houses would be, and hence they would have a much greater visual impact.The partial views of the single storey farm shop referred to by the appellant constitute rural views, whereas the much closer views of the proposed development would be of an incongruous suburban estate.

Comments on Heritage Statement.

See comments in paragraph 5.33 of section D above.

42

The appellants’ Amended Site Layout Plan (shown below) which they submitted by on 25th September 2017 shows Bumblebee Hall as being much smaller than it really is, and hence the appellants’ statement in their Heritage Statement that

“There is not thought to be any negative effect placed upon either Bumblebee Hall..., this is due to the indicative site plans (for illustrative purposes only) being arranged so that gardens are backing onto the existing property boundaries with the existing boundary treatments remaining.”

cannot be justified, since in reality the proposed houses would be much closer to Bumblebee Hall than is shown on the amended site plan:

Amended site layout plan

Furthermore due to appeal site being so much higher than the Bumblebee Hall site, the proposed houses would box in Bumblebee Hall and residents of the new houses would be able to look straight into the ground and first floor windows of Bumblebee Hall while standing in their gardens.

To say that the existing boundary treatments would remain is not for the appellants to decide since the hedge and trees are owned by the owners of Bumblebee Hall.

However, there would be nothing to stop new residents of the proposed houses erecting 2m high fences along the border between their houses and the Bumblebee Hall site, which would not only completely box Bumblebee Hall in, but would result in a loss of light to the ground floor of this house in particular. This photograph shows what the height of such a fence would look like from just outside the front door of Bumblebee Hall:

Bumblebee Hall

43

While the substantial sandstone retaining wall which runs along the appeal site boundary from John Street to Bumbleebee Hall may not be listed , Kirsty Henderson, BSc (Hons), PGDip, MRTPI, IHBC, who is a Built Environment Officer in the Council’s Conservation and Design Team said that

“the wall is an important built landscape feature with historic interest. It would be classed as an undesignated heritage asset and in any scheme affecting it, it should ideally be retained, or if that is not possible then some type of mitigation measures should be taken to reinstate it.”

Following my comments in paragraph 3.3 of section D of this report, it is still not clear whether the appellants would destroy all of this wall to provide a new footway which would be essential for safe pedestrian access, or whether they now intend to just create a vehicular access.

E 5.0 The impact of the proposed development on Rose Farm and farm shop

See paragraph 5.31 in section D above for the detrimental impact that the proposed development would have on Rose Farm Shop.E 6.0 Planning policies and White Paper reference.

Height of a 2m high boundary fence

44

Policies ENV2 and NE11 support my view that the appeal site and the surrounding open countryside should be protected from the proposed development .

The construction of a sub-urban housing estate on an elevated open country field will not preserve or enhance the character of the site itself or this part of the ASCV.

The Statement of Importance in the Local Landscape Designations:Areas of Special County Value in Cheshire West and Chester document states that the ASCV is :“Visually and perceptually some of the most important landscape within CWaC due to the relatively pronounced contrast in elevation and land cover in relation to the lower-lying pastoral landscapes of the Cheshire Plain to the east and west. This gives rise to a prominent but rounded skyline visible from a wide area that presents extensive views from a variety of points upon it.”

The proposed development would completely ignore these key principles of landscape importance for the Delamere/ Utkinton ASCV and the appellants statement in section 5.8 that

I do not consider the appeal proposals are contrary to the aims and principles of the policy( NE11) in terms of the impacts on the special qualities of the Delamere/Utkinton ASCV as a whole. Rather, the scheme would relate well to its landscape context and form an appropriate and well-designed addition to the settlement within the ASCV.

is wrong.Policy GS5 supports the protection of the character and appearance of the open countryside by prohibiting the construction of new buildings in the open countryside unless other policies in the Local Plan allow for it. In this case no other policies in the local plan allow for building houses on a site outside a settlement boundary in open countryside in an ASCV, unless there is a proven need for affordable housing.

The appellants’ refer in section 5.27 to the NPPFs criteria for sustainability :an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation;

but Cheshire West and Chester currently has a housing land supply of 8 years, which is well in excess of the target of 5 years supply.

and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, but there are no development requirements for this site.

a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations;

45

but there is no need for the proposed type of housing on this site.creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; This site, and the village of Utkinton is not socially sustainable because it has a very poor range of facilities and services , almost no public transport enabling residents can reach employment , essential services and facilities elsewhere. The village primary school is already oversubscribed.

an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; The proposed scheme would not protect or enhance the natural and built and historic environment at all, as it would turn an open field into a housing estate, dominate and overshadow existing houses including a locally important building, and would involve the destruction of at least part if not all of an ancient sandstone retaining wall which is an undesignated heritage asset.

In section 5.33 the appellants refer to the Government White Paper “Fixing our broken housing market”, but the conclusion that they draw from paragraph A.38 is taken out of context and is incorrect.

The appellants state

The White Paper states that the Government proposes ‘to clarify which national policies it regards as providing a strong reason to restrict development when preparing plans, or which indicate that development should be restricted when making decisions on planning applications’. Specifically, it states that ‘it is proposed that these are limited to the policies listed currently at footnote 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework, with the addition of Ancient Woodland and aged or veteran trees; and that these are no longer set out as ‘examples’ but as a clear list.’

With regard to this proposed amendment to footnote 9 of the NPPF, it is noted that the John Street site does not include any ancient woodland or aged or veteran trees. Therefore it would remain the position that there are no specific policies in the Framework that would indicate development should be restricted.

but if the preceding paragraph of the document , section A.37, is read it is clear that it is not the Government’s intention to restrict development only on the types of sites listed in footnote 9 of the NPPF , as the appellants have inferred at all: “Therefore the Government proposes to amend the National Planning Policy Framework so that when preparing plans:

local planning authorities should be able to demonstrate that they have a clear strategy to maximise the use of suitable land in their area, so it is clear how much development can be accommodated; and their identified housing requirement should be accommodated unless there are policies elsewhere in the National Planning Policy Framework that provide strong reasons for restricting development (rather than just

46

‘indicating’ development should be restricted, as policy says now); or the adverse impacts of meeting need would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

This raises several issues:

(a) Cheshire West and Chester Council have accommodated their identified housing requirement , having a current housing land supply of 8 years (as noted from the Cheshire West and Chester Housing Land Monitor 2017-2018 mentioned in section 6.0 above.)

(b) Section A.37 recognises that there may be are other policies within the NPPF which may provide strong reasons for restricting development , or that in some cases the adverse impacts of meeting need would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits .

Contrary to what the appellants have said, all of the following NPPF policies which aim to prevent unsuitable development in unsustainable rural locations such as Utkinton are relevant to the proposed development:

Section 7: Need to adhere to the three dimensions to sustainable development

Section 17: Need to adhere to 12 Core planning principles including 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”

Section 29: Promoting sustainable transport. Section 30: Need to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce congestion. Section 32: Need to ensure safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. Section 58: Need to understand and evaluate the defining characteristics of an area and respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials. Section 61: Need to integrate new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

Section 72: The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities.

Section 109: The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes

47

Section 110: In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment.

Section123: Planning policies and decisions should aim to:avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.

Section 129: Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

(c) Even though there was thought to be a proven need for affordable housing at the time the planning application was being considered , Cheshire West and Chester Council considered that the adverse impacts of meeting the alleged need on the landscape character of the site and the surrounding area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, and so they refused the application.

(d) Since the NPPF definition of “aged and veteran trees” is

“A tree which because of is great age , size or condition is of exceptional value for wildlife, in the landscape or culturally”,

The appellants are wrong to say that the appeal site does not have any “ ancient woodland or aged or veteran trees”, as the trees on the western boundary of the site have been included in a Tree Preservation Order for their importance in terms of maturity and their very beneficial contribution to the landscape.

Consequently the appeal site would fall within the categories of land included in the list in footnote 9 of the NPPF which are deemed to have features which render them unsuitable for development.

E 7.0 Summary and Conclusion

The appellants state in 8.1 that The potential effects on the local landscape setting of the settlement are very limited and confined to the south eastern portion of the village only.

48

but it has been proven that the effects on the local landscape setting would be severe and not confined to the village at all, and would affect other valuable areas of the ASCV. The appellants own statement in section 6.25 directly contradicts the above:The sensitivity of the site and the immediate surrounds are judged to be high..... Effects on the character of the landscape immediately surrounding the site primarily to the east are judged to be high to medium resulting in a major/moderate effect.

8.1 continues:The proposed housing would be located within a site that already forms part of the settlement being positioned between the busy Farm Shop and the existing properties and being surrounded by existing built form on almost all sides.

No -the site is outside the village boundary in open countryside , and being significantly elevated above both John Street and Northgate, the site is an entirely separate and different entity from the existing houses which are all within the village boundary. The presence of houses on John Street and Northgate has extremely little influence on the character of the site. The Farm and shop are similarly outside the village boundary and only exert a rural influence on the site, and, most importantly of all, the open fields to the east of the site are what have the greatest influence on the character of the site, being as they are, similarly elevated open fields in open countryside which have many of the qualities for which this ASCV is so highly valued. The site is not “surrounded by existing built form on almost all sides” at all.

8.2 statesWhilst the effects on the Landscape Character of the site and the immediate site surrounds would be significant, these would be very limited in extent and would not be significant in terms of the wider character area.

but this contradicts what the appellants said in paragraph 6.25 that The sensitivity of the site and the immediate surrounds are judged to be

high. The proposed development would result in a notable change to the character of the site, (within its boundaries)... The sensitivity of character has been assessed as high, the changes to character at a site level are judged to be high resulting in a major effect. Effects on the character of the landscape immediately surrounding the site primarily to the east are judged to be high to medium resulting in a major/moderate effect.

The highly valued views of and across the site from nearby public footpaths would be destroyed, the skyline would be dominated by the proposed houses , houses on John Street and Northgate would be overshadowed and dominated by the proposed houses ,and the tranquillity of the site and the surrounding area would be lost for ever.

8.2 continues

49

In terms of local distinctiveness the key existing element of note within the site are the sandstone retaining walls. These would be retained as a feature and rebuilt where the site entrance is made.

But then there would be no pedestrian access to the site.

8.2 continuesThe proposed development presents an opportunity to strengthen local architectural distinctiveness within a village that has seen extensive more generic development over recent decades.

but the site is not in the village but in open countryside .8.3 states

The key characteristics of the site itself such as the existing trees and the sandstone walls can be retained as part of the proposals.

The TPO’d trees must legally be retained and protected , a lot of the boundary hedges and trees are the property of neighbouring landowners and cannot therefore be removed anyway, and the sandstone wall on Northgate is an undesignated heritage asset and therefore should not be destroyed.

8.3 continuesOther elements such as new hedgerow planting, new tree planting and the management of remaining grassland to be species rich would be enhanced as part of the consideration of views into and over the site.

Who would manage the new planting, public areas and grassland, and at whose expense?

8.4 statesUtkinton is a relatively large village within the ASCV which could accommodate further development within the site area immediately adjacent to other built form.

The site is outside the village boundary for a reason, having being recognised by the planners who decided where the village boundary should be as being a separate and completely different entity ie an open elevated field in open countryside and not an area suitable for more housing. The site area is not immediately adjacent to other built form due to its high elevation.

8.4 continuesThe special qualities of the wider ASCV and the characteristics and features for which it has been designated would not be harmed by the development of this site which forms part of a village located within the ASCV.

This is simply not true. The site does not form part of the village , and the key characteristics of the ASCV would definitely be harmed by the development of this site, namely the spectacular long distance views,

50

the rolling topography, the uncluttered skyline, the tranquillity of this rural area, the raised elevation, low density of development and quiet lanes.

8.5 statesFor the reasons stated above and those set out in my statement, my view as an independent expert witness to this appeal, is that on landscape and visual grounds, there is no reason to refuse planning permission for the proposed development.

But I am of the firm opinion that the independently funded and hence impartial landscape experts who have written both the Local Plan policies and the Local Landscape Designations: Areas of Special County Value In Cheshire West and Chester (2017) document have a much better understanding of the landscape issues affecting both Utkinton and the surrounding area, and I fully support their views about the excellent landscape qualities of this area, and the importance of protecting those qualities from totally incongruous and inappropriate developments such as the proposed development.Comments on the rest of the Appellants’ appendices

(ii) Appendix 4 also appears to be one of the appendices to 001kc Hearing Statement , but is not the correct extract from the Local Landscape Designations ASCV 2017 document at all, as it shows the Beeston / Peckforton / Bolesworth ASCV, not the Delamere/ Utkinton ASCV. I attach the correct map and descriptive text for the Delamere/ Utkinton ASCV in Appendix 3 of this document.

(iii) Heritage Statement . See comments incorporated into paragraph 4.0 of section E of my comments on the appellants’ landscape statement above.

From:Ann Pownall, 5 Northgate Utkinton,on behalf of the Utkinton Green Space Action Group.

September 2018

51

APPENDIX 1 Extracts from the list of questions for the Examination in Public of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Part 2.

Independent Examination of the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan Part Two: Land Allocations and Detailed Policies

Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions for Examination

R Barrett BSc (Hons) MSc Dip UD Dip Hist Cons MRTPI IHBCInspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date: 20 July 2018

General matters

52

Page 2: Matter 1: Compliance with the Local Development Scheme, consultation, Habitats Regulations, the Act and Regulations and national planning policy

Issue 4: Sustainability Appraisal2

Q1. Have the likely environmental, social and economic effects of the Local Plan Part Two been adequately assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal?

Q2. Does this test the submitted plan against all reasonable alternatives where these exist, such as different options for housing, employment and minerals sites?

Page 4: Matter 2: The scale and distribution of development1. The Local Plan Part One provides the overall vision, strategic objectives,

spatial strategy and strategic policies for the borough to 2030. It sets the level and location of housing and employment land, as well as the identification of a number of strategic sites. The purpose of the submitted plan is to provide the detailed policies and land allocations required to deliver the overall strategy, set out in Local Plan Part One.

Issue 4: Local Service Centres (LSCs)

Q1. Is the approach towards the definition of settlement boundaries, of Key Service Centres (KSCs) and identification and definition of LSCs consistent with the policy context provided by the Local Plan Part One?

Page 10 Matter 7: Approach to Settlement areas (Chester, Northwich, Ellesmere Port, Winsford, KSCs and LSCs)Issue 1: General Questions

2. The submitted plan defines the extent of settlements in the urban and rural areas.

Q1. What is the approach towards the definition of settlements? Q2. How have they been defined?Q3. Is the approach taken justified, robust and effective?

Detailed matters in relation to each settlement will be dealt with by area.

Page 20 Matter 12: Rural area

Issue 1: Development in the rural area policy R1

3. Policy R1 defines the boundaries of KSCs within the rural area. It also identifies LCSs and defines their boundaries. How have the LSCs been

53

identified? Are they justified and effective? How have the boundaries to KSCs and LSCs been defined? Are they correct, justified and effective?

Q4. How were the site areas and dwelling capacities determined? Are the assumptions justified and based on available evidence?

Q5. Are the site boundaries correctly defined?

APPENDIX 2 Extracts from SPD 5 showing the key characteristics of the Dane Valley and t he East Winsford Undulating Enclosed Farmland area types

8E: DANE VALLEY

DESCRIPTION

Location and Boundaries The Dane Valley is a relatively shallow valley containing the course of the River Dane. It runs from Sproston Wood (where it enters the borough) to its confluence with the River Weaver in the centre of Northwich. The boundaries of the valley are defined predominantly by landform with the top of the slopes meeting the adjacent landscapes types of the Undulating Enclosed Farmland and East Cheshire Plain.

Key Characteristics 1. Shallow valley with low, steep sides containing the natural meandering course of

the River Dane and part of the Trent and Mersey Canal. 2. The valley sides support small remnants of ancient woodland, e.g. Sproston

Wood and Peck Mill Valley. 3. Alluvium on the valley floor gives rise to waterlogged soils which generally

support pasture, but also some arable farmland. Only small remnants of unimproved or semi-improved grassland.

4. Fields tend to be relatively large in size on the floodplain with smaller fields on the valley sides.

5. Willows and riverine vegetation border the river, marking its meandering course across the landscape.

6. Part of the Trent and Mersey Canal, constructed in 1777 by James Brindley to link the navigable River Trent to the River Mersey, contributes associated structures and artefacts of industrial archaeology, including a listed milepost.

54

7. Recreational opportunities are provided by the towpath alongside the Trent and Mersey Canal (forming part of the Cheshire Ring Canal Walk) and the Dane Valley Way.

8. Sandstone Bridges are distinctive features of the valley, located at historic crossing points of the River e.g. Shipbrook Bridge and Ravenscroft Bridge.

9. A notable absence of settlement/development – forms a ‘green lung’ entering Northwich.

10. A highly tranquil landscape due to lack of settlement, natural meandering river course, presence of woodland, pasture and riverside vegetation.

11. Views are generally restricted to within the valley. “

4E: EAST WINSFORD UNDULATING ENCLOSED FARMLAND

DESCRIPTION Location and Boundaries The East Winsford Undulating Enclosed Farmland represents a finger of gently undulating farmland sandwiched between the valleys of the Weaver and Dane which lie to the west and east respectively. At the north tip of the area is the confluence of the Weaver and Dane Rivers where the centre of Northwich is located. To the south the landscape gradually forms a transition to the flat lowland of the Wimboldesley & Sproston Plain.

Key Characteristics 3 A gently undulating lush landscape, mostly between 30m and 50m AOD, on a

bedrock geology of Mercia Mudstones (Northwich Halite Formation) covered by a mantle of glacial drift deposits.

4 Small brooks drain west into the Weaver or east into the Dane – many of these courses are wooded.

5 Boulder clay deposits mask the underlying mudstones giving rise to a predominance of slowly permeable clay soils that support a lush pastoral landscape as well as some arable crops.

6 Small scale irregular ancient enclosures and larger late post medieval enclosures are bounded by hedgerows with hedgerow trees and drainage ditches forming a strong field pattern and sense of enclosure.

7 Designed parkland landscapes and woodland at Bostock Hall, Davenham Hall and Stanthorne Hall indicate the wealth of the 19th century and provide a well manicured character.

8 Occasional field ponds are a feature of the area. 9 Sustrans’ national cycle route 5, which runs between Winsford and Northwich,

and the towpath alongside the Shropshire Union Canal both provide public access to the countryside.

55

10 Settlement pattern comprises large, scattered farmsteads, halls and hamlets linked by a network of rural lanes. Davenham Hall and Bostock Hall are now Conservation Areas.

11 Bostock Green is a late 18th century planned estate village associated with Bostock Hall and forming part of the Bostock Conservation Area.

12 Significant 20th century residential development forming the eastern outskirts of Winsford (Wharton) and the southern outskirts of Northwich (Leftwich, Davenham, Mere Heath, Moulton).

11. A distinctive built vernacular with timber framed buildings and large red brick dairy barns a particular feature. 12. The Shropshire Union Canal (Middlewich Branch including Stanthorne Lock) is

an important part of the industrial archaeology of the area – it is also a Site of Biological Importance for its emergent vegetation and grassland. There is also a salt mine and industrial estate at Wharton.

13. The A533, A5018, A54, mainline railway and power lines cut across the landscape, eroding tranquillity locally.

14. The skyline is punctuated by hedgerow trees, woodlands, farm buildings, electricity pylons and industrial buildings at Wharton. The church spire at Davenham forms a prominent landmark feature.

Visual Sensitivity Since this is a comparatively low lying landscape it doesn’t have a strong

skyline from a distance.”

APPENDIX 3 Extracts from “ LOCAL LANDSCAPE DESIGNATIONS: AREAS OF SPECIAL COUNTY VALUE IN CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESTER (2017) “

Delamere / Utkinton ASCV

56

57

General Description and Extent

Central and southerly sections of the prominent sandstone ridge that bisects the plains of Cheshire West and Chester borough from north to south. The ASCV comprises a markedly incised and narrow plateau landscape extending from its northern boundary at Manley Common and Delamere Forest to its southern limits at Tarporley. The narrow form of the ASCV reflects its delineation by steeply falling eastern and western slopes, whilst the short northern boundary abuts the Helsby & Frodsham Hills ASCV.

The southern area of the ASCV closely reflects the extent of Landscape Character Area 2c: Eddisbury Sandstone Ridge, with a small area of the LCA 3a: Helsby to Tarporley Sandstone Fringe north and south of the adjoining smaller Willington ASCV. Its northerly area comprises the north-western part of LCA 1a: Delamere, with its distinct woodland and mere components within the wider Woodland, Heaths, Meres and Mosses Landscape Character Type (LCT). The south-eastern fringe of the ASCV includes small parts of LCA 5c: Eaton, Morton and Over within the wider Undulating Enclosed Farmland LCT.

The eastern limits of the ASCV primarily abut Landscape Character Area 1a: Delamere, whilst the steep western flank the ASCV is wholly bounded by LCA 3a: Helsby to Tarporley Sandstone Fringe between Mouldsworth and Tarporley.

Statement of Importance

Visually and perceptually some of the most important landscape within CWaC due to the relatively pronounced contrast in elevation and land cover in relation to the lower-lying pastoral landscapes of the Cheshire Plain to the east and west. This gives rise to a prominent but rounded skyline visible from a wide area that presents extensive views from a variety of points upon it. Such views are particularly significant from historic hillfort and promontory forts, where expansive vistas are often panoramic over the plain towards the uplands of the Peak District in the east and to the Clwydian Hills and beyond in Wales in the west. The northern area of the ASCV, north of the A54, includes a lower lying reach of the sandstone ridge, where the non-agricultural land cover and waterscapes of the Delamere Forest contrast with the dry and more exposed upper reaches of the ridge, presenting much more enclosed, atmospheric landscapes offering significant access and recreation opportunities. Sandstone walls are occasionally characteristic features within the Sandstone Ridge landscape.

The landscape overall comprises a mosaic of larger woodlands, pasture and arable farmland with areas of smaller clough woodlands mainly to the north western and north eastern slopes of the ridge. More incised cloughs and dry valleys complicate the ridge’s topography. The Delamere Forest area of the ASCV is characterised by distinctive mosses and meres within large areas of broadleaf/conifer/mixed plantation woodlands.

58

Special Landscape Qualities - Delamere / Utkinton ASCV

1. Across the ASCV as a whole, the enclosed, organic mosaic of meres, mosses, swamp, fen, extensive mixed woodland and heathland of Delamere contrasts with the neighbouring landscape of elevated sandstone ridge, grasslands, block plantation and its open panoramic views in all directions.

2. Away from the main A54 and A556, tranquil rural character is underpinned by the absence of significant settlement across the ASCV.

3. A dynamic landscape is evident within Delamere with many locations showing different stages of peatland/mossland development and ecosystem succession.

4. Medium and small scale open water bodies known as meres add visual and ecological richness to the landscape.

5. The skyline of Delamere Forest is defined by trees, most often the dark lines of large conifer plantations overlying former heath, much of which is managed for recreation and habitat importance.

6. South of Delamere, steep sandstone slopes and dry gorges support small but dense broadleaved woodlands whilst sandy soils support permanent grassland on less steep ground.

7. Rounded outcrops of Triassic sandstone form a prominent, undulating ridge reaching to over 170m elevation at Pale Heights, with belts of Scots pines forming distinctive skyline elements.

8. Sandstone walls are occasionally characteristic features within the Sandstone Ridge landscape.

9. A deeply historic landscape whose water bodies and mosslands maintain a record of environment and climate change in excess of 10,000 years. Visible influences include Late Bronze Age promontory fort at Kelsborough, Eddisbury Hillfort (late Bronze Age and Anglo-Saxon Burh) and Roman Roads. However, the most visible historic features are experienced at the landscape scale; the Old Pale deer park and the regular geometric

59

fieldscape and large blocks of forestry established with the enclosure of Royal Forest of Mara in the nineteenth century.

10. Characteristic sunken lanes provide access over the ridge, responding to landform, whilst roads through Delamere are frequently unbounded, with woodland and open peatlands close to the carriageway edge.

11. The ‘Sandstone Trail’ runs along part of the ridge with other Public Rights of Way and permissive paths forming a dense network of access, particularly in Delamere.

12. Spectacular panoramic views from the ridge across Delamere Forest and beyond to the northeast, over the open plains to the south-east, to the Peckforton Hills to the south, and to north Wales to the west.

Criteria Summary DescriptionDistinctiveness Distinct, rolling and elevated

topography with complex incised valleys across the ridge with pronounced slopes to the east and west, contrasting with the less undulating moss heath and woodland of Delamere.

Markedly contrasting mosaics of land use, enclosure and field patterns with permanent grassland, hedgerow trees and block woodlands overlaying the complex relief of the ridge, and more enclosed woodland, plantation, heath and open waters of Delamere.

Raised elevation and low density of development and

quiet lanes serve to provide contrast with surrounding more settled landscapes.

60

Perceptual character

a. Contrasts between sense of elevation and openness upon the ridge to an atmospheric, enclosed, (perceptually) less managed landscape within Delamere.

b. Attractive, mystical contrast within Delamere of dense woodland opening out into heathland glades and open water of the mosses and meres, often giving rise toreflections of sky and trees from the water’s surface.

c. Broadleaved and mixed treescapes across the ridge and in Delamere Forest present strong seasonal changes and later the degree of enclosure.

d. Relative tranquillity away from neighbouring settlements and the main road and rail corridors which bisect the ridge north of Kelsall.

e. Low density of settlement, buildings and minor roads contribute to ‘deeper’ rural character.

f. Rolling topography rarely affords a sense of exposure apart from along the scarp slopes such as Eddisbury and where change in elevation is most obvious.

g. The relative elevation of the ridge is emphasised by frequent expansive vistas in all directions from various points in the ASCV.

h. Extensive Public Rights of Way network allows opportunities for direct experience of the contrastingspecial qualities of the ASCV.

Landscape and scenic quality

1.Relatively high, rolling farm and woodland landscape with limited incongruous features.

2.Attractive contrast between wooded valley sides and open rolling tracts of farmland across the ridgeline.

3.Prominent, distinctive, rolling skyline and inter-locking outline of the wooded slopes help enclose the landscape at times and add seasonal change.

4.Sandstone walls are characteristic features within the

Sandstone Ridge landscape.

61

Criteria Summary Description Small and medium still open waters

within woodland and heathland settings provide attractive and changing

visual experiences across Delamere.Natural character - RAMSAR site and SSSI designation at

Black Lake, Hatch Mere and Linmere Moss underline the international and national significance of its fen, mire and ‘quaking bog’ habitats.

- Local Wildlife Site designation also reflects local habitat importance.

- Pocket Local Wildlife Site designations across the ridge include Oxpasture Wood, Holbitch Slack and Fishpool Moss.

- Urchin’s Kitchen exposed rock formations and the

Delamere Soil Trail designated as Regionally ImportantGeological/Geomorphological Sites.

Cultural character Rich historic time-depth to the landscapes of the ASCV.

The visually distinctive Late Bronze Age and Iron Age hillfort at Eddisbury Hill (Scheduled Monument) which was briefly re-established as an Anglo-Saxon Burh (Old English fortification), and later the location of the

‘Chamber in the Forest’, a medieval hunting lodge and administrative centre for the Royal Forest .

The promontory fort at Kelsborrow (Scheduled Monument) occupies a prominent position along the western ridge.

Old Pale enclosed medieval deer park ditch and bank boundary is a distinctive historic feature in the landscape.

Cluster of Listed Buildings at Utkinton Hall country house.

Function The ridge acts as a significant landmark across the centre of the borough, serving a strong visual reference point for much of the east and west Cheshire plan and settlement across it.

Important network of Public Rights of Way network including the Sandstone Trail.

Important connecting ecological and green infrastructure function within Delamere forest along the across ASCV ridge, much of which is accessible.

Important elevated viewpoints along the ridge.Concentration of golf courses north of Tarporley.

62

Extensive views over the Cheshire Plain to the Peak District from Eddisbury Hill on the eastern slopes of the Sandstone Ridge

Dense woodland landscape of Delamere from the Sandstone Ridge

Rich time-depth to the ASCV landscape, showing earthworks at Eddisbury Hill hillfort.

Please see separate document for appendix 4 and appendix 5