Network Rail Ltd comments on neighbourhood plans.

Network Rail is a statutory consultee for any planning applications within 10 metres of relevant railway land (as the Rail Infrastructure Managers for the railway, set out in Article 16 of the Development Management Procedure Order) and for any development likely to result in a material increase in the volume or a material change in the character of traffic using a level crossing over a railway (as the Rail Network Operators, set out in Schedule 4 (J) of the Development Management Procedure Order).

Network Rail is also a statutory undertaker responsible for maintaining and operating the railway infrastructure and associated estate. It owns, operates and develops the main rail network. Network Rail aims to protect and enhance the railway infrastructure, therefore any proposed development which is in close proximity to the railway line or could potentially affect Network Rail’s specific land interests will need to be carefully considered.

Network Rail – railway specific advice notice to LPAs/Developers Please note that whilst Network Rail (NR) is submitting responses via the planning application process, it should be born in mind by the LPA/developer that the operational railway presents risks/issues that are different/unique to the risks posed by works taking place adjacent to non-railway undertaker land. Works on this site therefore must be undertaken with the supervision of NR via the ASPRO (asset protection) team to ensure that the works on site do not impact the safe operation, stability, integrity of the railway & its boundary. The LPA/developer are advised that unauthorised works adjacent to the railway boundary could impact the operation of nationally significant infrastructure & the applicant would be liable for any and all damages & costs caused by any works undertaken in this scenario. Therefore, the developer is requested to ensure that the development meets with NR requirements for works/developments adjacent to the railway boundary which include planning material considerations as well as obligations specific to the railway undertaker. The interface is via a NR BAPA (basic asset protection agreement) – the developer is advised that the works must not commence on site (even if planning permission is granted) until agreed with NR. The applicant will be liable for all costs incurred by NR in facilitating, reviewing this proposal.

Asset Protection Comments:
Developments in the policy area should be notified to Network Rail to ensure that:
(a) Access points / rights of way belonging to Network Rail are not impacted by developments within the area.
(b) That any proposal does not impact upon the railway infrastructure / Network Rail land e.g.
• Drainage works / water features
• Encroachment of land or air-space
• Excavation works
• Siting of structures/buildings less than 2m from the Network Rail boundary / Party Wall Act issues
• Lighting impacting upon train drivers’ ability to perceive signals
• Landscaping that could impact upon overhead lines or Network Rail boundary treatments
• Any piling works
• Any scaffolding works
• Any public open spaces and proposals where minors and young children may be likely to use a site which could result in trespass upon the railway (which we would remind the council is a criminal offence under s55 British Transport Commission Act 1949)
• Any use of crane or plant
• Any fencing works
• Any demolition works
• Any hard standing areas

For any proposal adjacent to the railway, Network Rail would request that a developer constructs (at their own expense) a suitable steel palisade trespass proof fence of at least 1.8m in height.
All initial proposals and plans should be flagged up to the Network Rail Town Planning at the following address:
Email: TownPlanningNWC@networkrail.co.uk

Railway Station
Consideration should be given in Transport Assessments to the potential for increased footfall at Railway Stations as a result of proposals for residential development / employment areas within the neighbourhood area. Location of the proposal, accessibility and density of the development, trip generation data should be considered in relation to the station. Where proposals are likely to increase footfall and the need for car parking, the council should include developer contributions (either via CIL, S106) to provide funding for enhancements as part of planning decisions.

Level Crossings
Developments within the neighbourhood area should be accompanied by a TS/TA which includes consideration of the impact of proposals upon any level crossings with mitigation implemented as required. We would encourage the Council to adopt specific policy wording to ensure that the impact of proposed new development (including cumulative impact) on the risk at existing level crossings is assessed by the developer(s), and suitable mitigation incorporated within the development proposals and funded by the developer(s). TS/TAs should be undertaken in conjunction with the local highways authority with advice from Network Rail. Contributions will be sought where proposals impact on level crossings to mitigate the impacts of those developments. Where level crossing closure is the only option, the applicant is advised that closure would be via s257 of the T&CPA, and that closure would be required before the occupation of any dwellings.

Network Rail – railway specific advice notice to LPAs/Developers Please note that whilst Network Rail (NR) is submitting responses via the planning application process, it should be born in mind by the LPA/developer that the operational railway presents risks/issues that are different/unique to the risks posed by works taking place adjacent to non-railway undertaker land. Works on this site therefore must be undertaken with the supervision of NR via the ASPRO (asset protection) team to ensure that the works on site do not impact the safe operation, stability, integrity of the railway & its boundary. The LPA/developer are advised that unauthorised works adjacent to the railway boundary could impact the operation of nationally significant infrastructure & the applicant would be liable for any and all damages & costs caused by any works undertaken in this scenario. Therefore, the developer is requested to ensure that the development meets with NR requirements for works/developments adjacent to the railway boundary which include planning material considerations as well as obligations specific to the railway undertaker. The interface is via a NR BAPA (basic asset protection agreement) – the developer is advised that the works must not commence on site (even if planning permission is granted) until agreed with NR. The applicant will be liable for all costs incurred by NR in facilitating, reviewing this proposal.



From

Diane Clarke
Town Planning Technician NWC
Network Rail
TownPlanningNWC@networkrail.co.uk

Good morning

Thank you for consulting National Highways on the Regulation 15 Submission Version of the Congleton Neighbourhood Plan. We welcome the opportunity to comment on policies and aspirations relating to transport and connectivity.

Strategic Road Network (SRN) Context
Congleton lies approximately 6 km from M6 Junction 17 via the A534, with the A54 providing access to Junction 18. While the Neighbourhood Plan area does not directly interface with the SRN, cumulative development in and around Congleton could influence traffic flows on these corridors. We therefore support the Plan’s emphasis on sustainable growth and reducing reliance on private car use, consistent with NPPF paragraphs 109 and 111 and DfT Circular 01/2022.

Walking and Cycling Strategy (Policy 7)
We welcome the commitment to active travel and integration with the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). This aligns with National Highways’ ambition to promote sustainable travel as part of our Net Zero Highways Plan and the need for a vison-led approach to planning. While these measures primarily serve local movement, they also help reduce longer-distance car trips that could otherwise affect the SRN.

Sustainable and Public Transport (Policy 8)
The focus on improving public transport connectivity and preparing Travel Plans is supported. These measures will help manage travel demand and reduce car dependency, indirectly supporting the efficient operation of the SRN.

Summary
National Highways supports the principles set out in the Neighbourhood Plan to promote sustainable transport and active travel. While direct impacts on the SRN are expected to be limited, we encourage continued application of robust transport assessments for major schemes and early engagement where proposals could influence traffic flows on the A534/A54 corridors or M6 Junctions 17 and 18.

Kind regards

Adam

Adam Johnson | Spatial Planner
Cheshire | Merseyside | Greater Manchester
Spatial Planning Team, North West Operations
National Highways | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD
Tel: +44 (0) 7917 426 500
Web: http://www.nationalhighways.co.uk/

Thank you for your consultation.

We are the charity who look after and bring to life 2000 miles of canals & rivers. Our waterways contribute to the health and wellbeing of local communities and economies, creating attractive and connected places to live, work, volunteer and spend leisure time. These historic, natural and cultural assets form part of the strategic and local green-blue infrastructure network, linking urban and rural communities as well as habitats. By caring for our waterways and promoting their use we believe we can improve the wellbeing of our nation. The Canal & River Trust (the Trust) is a statutory consultee in the Development Management process, and as such we welcome the opportunity to input into planning policy related matters to ensure that our waterways are protected, safeguarded and enhanced within an appropriate policy framework.

The Trust own and manage the Macclesfield Canal, which runs through the south part of the Neighbourhood Plan Area.

We wish to make comment on the following:

Policy 10 - Access to Health and Wellbeing
The proposed policy text states that “All major developments should be designed having considered the way it can benefit the mental wellbeing of new and future users and occupiers.” The text states that measures may include access to new green and open spaces.

We wish to highlight that opportunities to improve access to, and to improve existing, green and open spaces should ideally be included within the proposed policy text. This would help make the plan more effective in ensuring that the benefits of access to existing spaces can be fully realised. This would be consistent with the aims of paragraph 96 (part c) from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which highlights the benefits of accessible green infrastructure.

As an example of the importance of our spaces, our waterway corridors and towpaths form an important green and blue infrastructure asset, which provide a freely accessible resource for recreation and leisure activities in addition to providing opportunities for active travel in a largely traffic free environment. The Trust’s Outcomes Report (2022) https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/valuing-our-waterways highlights that the annual social value generated by our waterways is £4.6bn, including £1.1bn cost savings to the NHS derived from active use of the waterways and towpaths, and £2.9bn from improved mental health and wellbeing through access to our spaces for leisure and recreation.

We therefore request that the text of the policy is amended if possible to refer more to the opportunities of access to green and blue infrastructure and the benefits of this to wellbeing, which could help ensure that opportunities of improved access can be maximised. We believe this would improve the effectiveness of the proposed Neighbourhood Plan.

Policy 18 – Views, Vistas and Gateways
The proposed policy positively acknowledges the canal as a linear viewpoint.

We note that Map 8 includes key canal-side viewpoints such as the Dane in Shaw embankment and Canal Bridge No.75 which we consider appropriate. We wish to highlight that an additional viewpoint from Bridge 76 Morris Change Bridge contributes to the town’s heritage and canal experience and could also be considered alongside the policy.

The policy text refers to the use of “locally appropriate materials”. We wish to highlight that in the context of the canal, new planting and surfacing should respect the character of the canal and should seek to maintain surveillance, views and access to the corridor.

We hope the above comments will be of use.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you may have.
Yours sincerely,



Simon Tucker MRTPI
Area Planner
Simon.Tucker@canalrivertrust.org.uk
07885 241223

A few areas could be clearer or more specific to make the plan more effective:
•Add stronger wording so developers must support walking and cycling routes, not just be encouraged to.
•Include a local climate and energy policy to promote energy-efficient design, renewables, and EV charging.
•Add a flooding and water management policy (SuDS, permeable surfaces, drainage design).
•Include expectations around affordable and adaptable housing to meet local needs.
•Add a short section on digital infrastructure (broadband, 5G, EV charging).
•Include a simple delivery and monitoring table showing who’s responsible for key actions and how progress will be tracked.

Most policies require the following text inserting:

Equality Act 2010 Compliance:
All development proposals must demonstrate compliance with the Equality Act 2010, ensuring that design, layout and delivery promote equality of opportunity, eliminate discrimination, and provide inclusive access for all members of the community, including those with protected characteristics.

Overall, this is a strong and well-prepared plan that sets a positive direction for Congleton’s future.
A few practical additions would make it more effective and ensure that local priorities carry real weight in future planning decisions. See my previous submissions.

Dear Sir / Madam

On behalf of our client National Gas Transmission please see the attached letter of representation in respect of the current consultation.

If you have any queries please contact nationalgas.uk@avisonyoung.com.

Kind Regards
Tom

Tom Wignall
Planner
Mobile +44 07985483600
tom.wignall@avisonyoung.com | avisonyoung.com

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for consulting Historic England, please find our response attached.

Thank you,
Emma

Emma Grange | Historic Places Advisor

Proofreading comments: Typos and consistency
p35 point 3. Spelling: stiles not styles
p35 point 7. Semi colon needs removing
p80 28 High Town Works, Biddulph Rd – surely Hightown (or High Town) Workhouse not Works?
NB 28 Biddulph Rd is a terraced house.
P80 Old Grammer - missing a third word (school)? Is the spelling correct? Grammar surely?
P80 Mossley House – description - linear not liner?
P 81 – inconsistent address styles.
Suggest Crofters – no need for brackets, then address: 40 Cross Lane;
West Heath Mill, then address: Bryn Hall 40 Holmes Chapel Rd;
Stone House, 40 Leek Rd.
Similar on p82: Instead of the Music Box (this ex pub is unoccupied), just give the address 12 Mill St.

General comments – accessibility
Poor presentation – landscape format instead of portrait is a problem for digitial or print. For digital it means only those with a very wide screen can have an overall view. People with ordinary laptops and phones have to do a lot of scrolling to access this. For print it is an awkward document to handle.

Use of pale grey text – an accessibility no-no

Please do some accessibility training with the designers and in future only commission designers with accessibility awareness.

Thanks to all those involved especially all the volunteers who have put so much work into this despite being unpaid.

The document is a very thorough approach that will provide guidance to CEC, but there are some omissions, and also some language is vague (consider, encourage) and needs to be stronger (provide, must, will, should) to be sure that wishes translate into action.

Throughout:
Replace ‘walking and cycling’ with ‘walking, wheeling and cycling’; 'walking' with 'walking and wheeling' and 'cycling' with 'wheeling and cycling'. This to ensure that people with pushchairs are accommodated, and those using wheeled mobility aids.

Replace ‘dropped kerbs’ with ‘entry kerbs’. These enable walkers, wheelers and vehicles to access a driveway or crossing, but retain a level surface. More about this here: https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-british-entrance-kerb-exclusive.html

Each policy:
To remind CEC of its responsibilities, and ensure no-one is left out or left behind, it's really important to make explicit reference to the Equality Act 2010 when referring to new developments (whether residential, business, commercial, industrial and infrastructure). Also to all points made regarding accessibility generally and/or walking/wheeling/cycling. The Act and data on % with disabilities should go into the evidence base on each page where either or both are mentioned.

p8 point 5
Expand or incorporate with the following: All new developments, buildings and conversions to fully incorporate the latest standards of insulation, solar panels, heat pumps and other equipment to maximise sustainability.

p8 point 7
Expand by adding:
Secure [...] opportunities, aided by a supply of genuinely affordable or social housing or both to ensure individuals and young families can live here, and to ensure accommodation for employees living individually or within families.

Our records indicate that within the Congleton Neighbourhood Plan area there are coal mining features at surface and shallow depth, including; mine entries and probable coal workings. If present these features pose a potential risk to surface stability and public safety.
we note that it does not appear that the Neighbourhood Plan proposes to allocate any new sites for development and on this basis we have no detailed comments to make.

BY EMAIL ONLY
RE: Consultation on Congleton Neighbourhood Plan Submission Version (Regulation 16)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above document. The following representations are submitted by NHS Property Services (NHSPS) on behalf of Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (ICB).
Background
Cheshire and Merseyside ICB commissions (plans, designs and purchases) many of the health services that local people use, including medicines, hospital care, urgent and emergency services, mental health care, GP services, Community Pharmacy, dentistry and general ophthalmology (eye care services) and many community services.
NHSPS is part of the NHS and is wholly owned by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). NHSPS manages, maintains and improves NHS properties and facilities, working in partnership with NHS organisations to create safe, efficient, sustainable and modern healthcare environments. We partner with local NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and wider NHS organisations to help them plan and manage their estates to unlock greater value and ensure every patient can get the care they need in the right place and space for them.
Developments often have very significant impacts in terms of the need for additional healthcare provision for future residents, meaning that a planning obligation requiring that the development contributes to or delivers a new healthcare facility is often necessary.
General Comments on Health Infrastructure to Support Housing Growth
The delivery of new and improved healthcare infrastructure is significantly resource intensive. The NHS as a whole is facing significant constraints in terms of the funding needed to deliver healthcare services, and population growth from new housing development adds further pressure to the system. New development should make a proportionate contribution to funding the healthcare needs arising from new development. Health provision is an integral component of sustainable development – access to essential healthcare services promotes good health outcomes and supports the overall social and economic wellbeing of an area.
Residential developments often have very significant impacts in terms of the need for additional primary and community healthcare provision for future residents. Given health and care infrastructure’s strategic importance to supporting housing growth and sustainable development, it should be considered at the forefront of the priorities for infrastructure delivery. The ability to continually review the quality and utilisation of healthcare, and wider public estate, optimise land use, and deliver health services from modern fit for the future facilities is crucial. Infrastructure including access to digital solutions must be supported to develop, modernise, or be protected in line with integrated NHS strategies. Planning policies should enable the delivery of essential health and care infrastructure.
Policy 10 Accessibility to Health and Wellbeing
We support the inclusion of a reference at Policy 10 (Accessibility to Health and Wellbeing) that proposals for new health and wellbeing facilities and services will be strongly supported. We also support the requirement for Health Impact Assessments to be undertaken for major developments, taking into consideration the implications on mental wellbeing.
We are pleased to see that the Regulation 16 version now includes reference to the scenario whereby the sale or reuse of health assets is reinvested into services. All NHS land disposals follow a rigorous process to ensure that levels of healthcare service provision in the locality of disposals are maintained or enhanced, and proceeds from land sales are re-invested in the provision of healthcare services locally and nationally. The decision about whether a property is surplus to NHS requirements is made by local health commissioners and NHS England. Sites can only be disposed of once the operational health requirement has ceased. This does not mean that the healthcare services are no longer needed in the area, rather it means that there are alternative provisions that are being invested in to modernise services.
It is noted that in the justification for Policy 10 of the Neighbourhood Plan, it states that the Neighbourhood Plan cannot request or identify new or expanded provision. We do however recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan makes reference to the use of developer contributions towards healthcare infrastructure to ensure alignment with national planning policy.
For accuracy, when referring to new or expanded provision of services and facilities in the justification text, Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (ICB) should also be referenced this is the NHS organisation responsible for commissioning services, such as GP practices, at the local level.
Policy 12 The Future of Local Community Facilities
We note that both Policies 10 and 12 refer to the potential loss of community facilities. It should therefore be considered whether these policies can be amalgamated to ensure consistency.
As currently worded Policy 12 is restrictive for the NHS from an estate redevelopment perspective, which could be harmful to the NHS and the ability to adapt to changing requirements. This seems to be an unintended consequence of the policy, which at present does not reflect the ownership and management of NHS facilities that are often different from other forms of community infrastructure, such as those owned and managed by the local authority.
Where healthcare facilities are included within the Local’s Plan definition of community facilities, policies aimed at preventing the loss or change of use of community facilities and assets can potentially have a harmful impact on the NHS’s ability to ensure the delivery of essential facilities and services for the community.
The NHS requires flexibility with regards to the use of its estate to deliver its core objective of enabling excellent patient care and support key healthcare strategies such as the NHS Long Term Plan. In particular, the disposal of sites and properties which are redundant or no longer suitable for healthcare for best value (open market value) is a critical component in helping to fund new or improved services within a local area. Requiring NHS disposal sites to explore the potential for alternative community uses and/or to retain a substantial proportion of community facility provision adds unjustified delay to vital reinvestment in facilities and services for the community.
Where it can be demonstrated that health facilities are surplus to requirements or will be changed as part of wider NHS estate reorganisation and service transformation programmes, it should be accepted that a facility is neither needed nor viable for its current use, and policies within the Local Plan should support the principle of alternative uses for NHS sites with no requirement for retention of a community facility use on the land or submission of onerous information. The following amendment is therefore recommended:
Proposed Modification to Policy 12:
Where healthcare facilities are formally declared surplus to the operational healthcare requirements of the NHS or identified as surplus as part of a published estates strategy or service transformation plan, there will be no requirement to retain any part of the site in an alternative community use.
Conclusion
Cheshire and Merseyside ICB and NHSPS thank the Council for the opportunity to comment on the Regulation 14 consultation. Should you have any queries or require any further information, please don’t hesitate to contact us. NHSPS would be grateful to be kept informed of the progression of the Neighbourhood Plan via our dedicated email address, town.planning@property.nhs.uk.
Yours faithfully,
Lucy Andrews and Laura Allen RTPI

CNP still includes errors, some mentioned at Reg 14 consultation.
Contents: Aspiration 5 is A? Clarify somewhere at the beginning why there are Aspirations as opposed to Policies.
Allotments - can't find any aspirations or policies for increasing provision but lack of allotment sites in the town has frequently been mentioned at earlier stages. Applying the requirement set out in Table 13.1 of the Local Plan Strategy (based on the 2011 census population) would result in 5.576 ha within Congleton compared with 1.198 ha at present i.e. less than 22% of the recommended area. The figure would be 20% using NSALG standards. A policy referring to increasing allotment provision could be added to the Health & Wellbeing section of the CNP.
P37 - remove reference to standard or heavy standard trees (not relevant to replacement hedges or woodlands) - size and number should depend on situation, but should result ultimately in vegetation of equal or greater value than that removed.
P40 - Indicative wildlife corridors, not 'initiative'. Note that the CWT maps are now rather out of date with loss of habitat due to road and residential development.
P45 - Evidence base for Policy 13 should include Congleton LCA Parts 1 and 2.
P 48-49: Dane in Shaw Pasture SSSI. Some larger green spaces on Map 6 are not protected by SADPD REC 1 - they are countryside PG6 or SE15. NB Congleton LCA did not assess individual green spaces. Also - perhaps it should be made clear that not all the green spaces shown on Map 6 are publicly accessible - though they all contribute to landscape character and quality, some are private land.
P50 The list of locally important landscape areas is full of mistakes and should match the key on Map 7 e.g. Area A is Dane Valley only, B has no meres, C is Congleton Moss not Moss Rooms (it's a larger area), D is Dane in Shaw Brook (not river) & Bath Vale, F - remove word 'Upper' as it's not needed.
P51 Map 7 is from the Congleton LCA Part 3 (not 2).
P86 Appendix 5: Buglawton sites have got added to Lower Heath ones, some duplicated.

Policy 16 Housing for an ageing population

We note that Policy 16 Housing for an ageing population supports the retention, replacement or redevelopment of existing bungalows so long as the replacement meets the M4(3) standard as well as supporting Small-scale developments providing specialist, accessible or affordable housing that are in a sustainable location.

Older persons housing need
We have considered the evidence paper ‘Neighbourhood Plan Older Persons Accommodation Needs from SHOP data for Congleton 2015-2030’, that has been published to support the neighbourhood plan. This identifies a large need for 473 sheltered or retirement living homes by 2030 and 73 extra care homes and note a negative need for nursing and residential care. We therefore feel, given the large need for specialist housing for older people that para 2 of policy 16 should be amended to read ‘Specialist Housing for older people and Small-scale developments providing specialist, accessible or affordable housing will be strongly supported where they are in a sustainable location with good accessibility to local services and facilities’.

M4(3) housing
Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 63-009-20190626 of the PPG on Housing for Older and Disabled people considers if plan making bodies can set minimum standards for accessible housing.
This states:
‘Where an identified need exists, plans are expected to make use of the optional technical housing standards (footnote 46 of the National Planning Policy Framework) to help bring forward an adequate supply of accessible housing. In doing so planning policies for housing can set out the proportion of new housing that will be delivered to the following standards:
M4(1) Category 1: Visitable dwellings (the minimum standard that applies where no planning condition is given unless a plan sets a higher minimum requirement)
M4(2) Category 2: Accessible and adaptable dwellings
M4(3) Category 3: Wheelchair user dwellings
Planning policies for accessible housing need to be based on evidence of need, viability and a consideration of site specific factors.’
The Housing Optional Technical Standards (HOTS) then provides more detail about accessibility and wheelchair housing standards. Para Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 56-009-20150327 of the HOTS states that:
‘Part M of the Building Regulations sets a distinction between wheelchair accessible (a home readily useable by a wheelchair user at the point of completion) and wheelchair adaptable (a home that can be easily adapted to meet the needs of a household including wheelchair users) dwellings.
Local Plan policies for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those dwellings where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling.’
HOTS are also clear that wheelchair accessible home requirements should only be applied to those dwellings where the Local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling.
HOTS again make it clear (as well as the PPG on Housing for Older and Disabled People) that any requirement for accessible and adaptable homes should also consider viability. This is confirmed in Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 56-007-20150327 that ‘M4(3) homes has viability implications’. Any M4(3) requirement needs to be considered on top of M4(2) in terms of viability and would include additional costs for fixtures and fittings, services and controls and additionally room dimensions and layout which include up to 30% more floorspace and corresponding reduction in density, sales values and affordability of such housing’. While some value may be secured for larger units this is unlikely to mitigate the overall loss of units across the proposal as a result of the requirement making the scheme even less viable than already shown.
In this respect, we would highlight appeal decision 3327682 for a site in Penketh, Warrington attached to this note that specially address M4(3) housing within retirement living apartments. This considers the provision of Wheelchair dwellings in detail in para 19 to 39 with the Inspector concluding that it is not viable for the scheme to deliver a proportion of M4(3) housing.

It is therefore clear that the requirement for M4(3) has not had appropriate regard for national policy and advice issued by the secretary of state and therefore does not meet the basic conditions and should be removed.

Policy 19, page 58, reference to: "Incorporating swift boxes or bat boxes into the design of new buildings" is welcome but please add relevant text from national planning guidance (NPPG Natural Environment 2025 paragraph 017 - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/natural-environment ),
which clarifies that swift boxes should be integrated swift bricks, as these are a universal nest brick for small bird species.
Ideally also add from the NPPG that at least one swift brick per dwelling on average should be installed for new developments, and include the best-practice guidance referenced in the NPPG.

Dear Sir/Madam
Congleton Neighbourhood Plan - Regulation 16 Consultation
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 06 October 2025.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Natural England is a statutory consultee in neighbourhood planning and must be consulted on draft neighbourhood development plans by the Parish/Town Councils or Neighbourhood Forums where they consider our interests would be affected by the proposals made.
Natural England does not have any specific comments on this draft neighbourhood plan.
However, we refer you to the attached annex which covers the issues and opportunities that should be considered when preparing a Neighbourhood Plan and to the following information.
Natural England does not hold information on the location of significant populations of protected species, so is unable to advise whether this plan is likely to affect protected species to such an extent as to require a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Further information on protected species and development is included in Natural England's Standing Advice on protected species .
Furthermore, Natural England does not routinely maintain locally specific data on all environmental assets. The plan may have environmental impacts on priority species and/or habitats, local wildlife sites, soils and best and most versatile agricultural land, or on local landscape character that may be sufficient to warrant a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Information on ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees is set out in Natural England/Forestry Commission standing advice.
We therefore recommend that advice is sought from your ecological, landscape and soils advisers, local record centre, recording society or wildlife body on the local soils, best and most versatile agricultural land, landscape, geodiversity and biodiversity receptors that may be affected by the plan before determining whether a Strategic Environmental Assessment is necessary.
Natural England reserves the right to provide further advice on the environmental assessment of the plan. This includes any third party appeal against any screening decision you may make. If an Strategic Environmental Assessment is required, Natural England must be consulted at the scoping and environmental report stages.
For any further consultations on your plan, please contact: consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.
Yours faithfully
Sally Wintle
Consultations Team

Dear Cheshire East Neighbourhood Planning Team,
RE: Congleton Neighbourhood Plan – Regulation 16 Response
This letter provides Gladman Developments Ltd (Gladman) representations in response to the
submission version of the Congleton Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) under Regulation 16 of the
Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. This letter broadly supports the general
direction of the CNP whilst also suggesting some changes that may be beneficial to the wider
content of the plan.
Legal Requirements
Before a neighbourhood plan can proceed to referendum, it must be tested against a set of
basic conditions set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4b of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 (as amended). The basic conditions that the CNP must meet are as follows:
“(a) Having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the
Secretary of State, it is appropriate to make the order.
(d) The making of the order contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.
(e) The making of the order is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained
in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area).
(f) The making of the order does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU
obligations.
(g) Prescribed conditions are met in relation to the Order (or plan) and prescribed matters
have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the order (or
neighbourhood plan).”
National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In doing so it sets out the requirements for the preparation of neighbourhood plans to be in conformity with the strategic priorities for the wider area and the role they play in delivering sustainable development to meet development needs.
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) makes clear that neighbourhood plans should conform to national policy requirements and take account of the most up-to-date evidence. This is so that APC can assist Melton Borough Council (MBC) in delivering sustainable development and be in accordance with basic condition (d).
Congleton Neighbourhood Plan
Gladman support the community’s initiative to prepare a neighbourhood plan for Congleton and we welcome the opportunity to comment on the submission plan. The following section responds to the CNP submission document and its supporting evidence base. At this stage, we do not consider it necessary to comment on each policy contained within the CNP, rather we have sought to provide feedback with the aim to assist in creating robust policies. Our advice is intended to help the CNP in its examination in order to ensure that the CNP meets the basic conditions.
Relationship to Local Plans
To meet the requirements of the Framework and the Neighbourhood Plan Basic Conditions, neighbourhood plans should be prepared to conform to the strategic policy requirements set out in the adopted Development Plan. The adopted development plan relevant to the preparation of the CNP is the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELPS). The CELPS was adopted in July 2017 and sets out policies for the use and development of land across the whole of the borough. Within the CELPS, Congleton is identified as a Key Service Centre and was a key focus for growth, albeit much of the planned growth is adjacent to the Town Council administrative area, in neighbouring parishes.
Cheshire East Council have commenced work on preparing a new Local Plan which will be prepared under the ‘new style’ plan making framework. The introduction from central government of the revised standard method for calculating local housing need in England using the stock-based approach, has resulted in a significantly higher housing requirement for Cheshire East than the current adopted housing requirement, and will likely require all settlements to play their part in accommodating additional growth, especially the larger, more sustainable towns, such as Congleton.
Whilst it is expected that the CNP will be ‘made’ in advance of any firm progress on the Cheshire East Local Plan, it will nonetheless be crucial for Congleton Town Council to keep abreast of this process and any impacts that this could have on the Neighbourhood Plan. To this extent, Gladman welcome the acknowledgement set out in the ‘Monitoring and Review’ section of the CNP that there are a number of circumstances under which a partial review of the Neighbourhood Plan may be necessary, such as revisions to existing local plan documents. Whilst reference is made to changing local plan documents, the wording does not explicitly reference the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan, and we suggest that the draft Neighbourhood Plan could benefit from a commitment to undertake a review upon adoption of the Local Plan.
Policy 15 – Congleton’s Landscape Character
Gladman agrees any new development should enhance the local landscape character, however, believe that the policy wording should provide greater flexibility. The policy identifies six locally important landscape areas on Map 7 and seeks to restrict any new built form within these landscape areas to small scale. Gladman consider that this approach would limit the growth of Congleton and acts as a barrier to development. Four of the six landscape areas directly adjoin the settlement edge and limiting growth in these areas to only small scale could limit future sustainable opportunities, this is especially pertinent in the context of the increase in local housing need for Cheshire East and the important role which Congleton is likely to play in ensuring that the authority’s housing needs are met in full.
Gladman believes that with sensitive design, development can minimise any impact on the designated areas and be able to provide features to enhance the designated landscape areas.
Policy 18 – Views, Vistas and Gateways
Policy 18 of the CNP requires development to protect or enhance key views, vistas and landmarks where relevant. Map 8 shows the key views and vistas within and from Congleton, taken from the Congleton Landscape Character Assessment. The assessment was published in 2020, prior to the completion of the Congleton bypass. The bypass covers areas north and west of the settlement and therefore may affect some of the identified views within these areas. Gladman would recommend that to be for the evidence to be a sound base from which to base this policy on, the Landscape Character Assessment should be updated given the new context.
Conclusion
Gladman are broadly supportive of the proposed policies of the CNP and its content and we commend the Neighbourhood Plan Development Working Group in the work to date. Through our consultation response, Gladman has sought to clarify the relationship of the draft CNP as currently proposed with the requirements of national planning policy and the strategic policies for the wider area. Gladman would like to highlight that the above consultation response is not a criticism of the work put into the draft CNP so far.
Should further clarification be needed on points raised above, the Working Group are welcome to contact Richard Naylor at r.naylor@gladman.co.uk.
Yours sincerely
Richard Naylor

Our group (54 members) acknowledges the dedication by volunteers in producing this document for the benefit of Congleton.

We trust that you will consider our suggested tweaks and additions to make the document even more beneficial. If it isn’t mentioned here, then it won’t be on CEC’s radar. Also we think that you should replace softer language (e.g. consider, encourage) with more forceful language to make a stronger document.

Throughout – search and replace
There are many references to walking, or pedestrians, or walking and cycling, or cycling. Wheeling has been omitted so needs adding when any of these references are made.

Replace references to ‘dropped kerbs’ with ‘entry kerbs’. These retain a continuous level pavement/footway, and also enable walkers, wheelers and vehicles to access a driveway or crossing.

Omissions:
Each policy:
Make explicit reference to the Equality Act 2010 when referring to new developments (presidential, business, commercial, industrial and infrastructure), accessibility generally or walking/wheeling/cycling. The Act and data on % with disabilities should go into the evidence base on each page where either or both are mentioned. This to remind CEC of its legal responsibilities.

Evidence base:
The North Congleton Masterplan 2015 (a document detailing connectivity between the town and the many new site allocations on the north side of Congleton) is listed in the evidence base, but not cross referenced anywhere in the document. Suggest it goes into policy/strategy 7 and 8 at the very least. Possibly elsewhere too.

CEC’s Local Transport Vision/Policy/Strategy and Active Travel Policy/Strategy – they need including and cross referencing in relevant sections.

Vision and objectives (p8):
Point 5. Add ‘….adapt to climate change’ and reduce further change.
Point 6. Add ‘Develop an accessible and integrated….shops, services, employment sites, leisure sites, open spaces...’ This to reduce further climate change, and create a more pleasant environment for all.

Strategy (p10):
Strategy 1 should link to policy 7 and 8, and aspiration 8, since these specifically address climate change issues.
Policy 7 walking and cycling strategy (p30):
Intro.
Change ‘how they have considered’ to ‘how they will facilitate…’

Point 1.
Change/add: To encourage facilitate walking….through design of permeable, safe, convenient routes, 20mph or lower speed limits, and provision of secure storage facilities for cycles and other mobility aids.

Point 2.
Consider Ensure the site will be….
Add: Specify firm smooth surfaces for walking, wheeling and cycling routes, along with entry kerbs for accessibility.
Add: Ensure ramps and never steps are used to connect changes in site levels.
Add: Ensure access points for drives and road crossing points have entry kerbs instead of dropped kerbs, to provide a level pavement.

Point 3.
Omit ‘where appropriate’ [because this provides a get-out clause that invites exploitation.]

Add point: Avoid lost potential of permeability/connectivity for walking, wheeling, cycling with neighbouring developments by the purchase of any third party land barrier.

Add point: Specify 20mph (or lower as appropriate) on all residential roads to increase safety for walkers, wheelers and cycle riders. [if not included in point 1]

Policy 8 Sustainable and Public Transport (p33):
Point 1 and point a.
Add an explicit reference to zebra crossings and light-controlled crossings as a means for safe and attractive connections.

Point 1
Add or make a new point: Providing access to bus stops by a firm smooth surfaced path across any grass verges or other unmade ground.

Point 1
Add or make a new point: Providing secure cycle parking incl for non-standard cycles at railway stations, and good public transport connections, with bus stops/shelters/seats on station forecourts for convenience of travellers, particularly with disabilities.

Point 1
Add or make a new point: an explicit reference that developers provide pavements (aka footways) alongside every carriageway and, or frontage to premises.

Point 4:
Change: ‘...development that enable and encourage...’
Change: ‘bike’ to ‘cycle’. [Bikes can be interpreted as motorbikes. Cycle is a better umbrella term for pedalled equipment and includes a variety of styles e.g. trikes.]
Add: ‘...routes and spaces, ensuring firm smooth surfaces for accessibility, in addition to…’
Add to list:
Provision of information about train/bus services, routes, times and live times in accessible forms at the point of service.

Aspiration B (p35):
Add: 20mph or lower speed limits on all residential roads.
Add: All dropped/entry kerb road crossings to be paired with one on the opposite side of the road.
Amend ‘crossing’ . This could just mean the bare minimum of a dropped kerb, or a zebra or a light-controlled pedestrian/cycle crossing. It’s not clear which you aspire to in this list. Better to qualify all with ‘zebra or light-controlled crossing’.
Add: crossing provision at the filter lane on the east side of the Clayton by-pass/Rood Hill traffic lights. [The lights for the filter were replaced with a give-way, making it difficult to cross here on foot].
Add: zebra or light-controlled crossing for Canal Rd to link the bus stop with the hospital
Add: Aspiration to broaden high footfall but narrow pavements on shopping streets where carriageway widths permit e.g. Mill Street, Lawton St.
Add: Aspiration to make further shopping streets more people-centric by vehicle restrictions e.g. Mill St, Swan Bank, High St – to reduce the volume of through vehicles and force them onto the roads built to take it i.e. Park Lane, Mountbatten Way, Clayton Bypass, Rood Hill.
Add: Designate the riverside path in Congleton town park (between the two bridges) as a cycle route (people already cycle along here).
Add: Improve access to Astbury Mere Country Park/National Cycle Network 573 by widening Newcastle Rd pavements slightly, removing the acceleration lane and adding a long narrow refuge – highlighted in red below.
Policy 11 Education development (p42)
Point 4.
Add: Sufficient on-site cycle parking for staff and children, and ‘sufficient on-site car parking….’

Policy 16 Housing for an ageing population (p53)
Add: Retained or developed dwellings need covered parking for mobility scooters, standard and non-standard cycles.

Glossary (p68):
Add an entry/definition: Accessibility

Please see attached to the Congleton Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 16 consultation, on behalf of Cheshire East Council.

Regards,
Tom
Tom Evans
Strategic and Environmental Planning Manager