Full text:
HOUS01
I object to policy HOUS01 due to the removal of the Brereton Heath settlement boundary.
The main issue is the unfair local president for residents of Brereton Heath.
Prior to the SADPD and subsequent removal of the settlement boundary residents would regularly see individual homes extended and renovated. With the addition of several new build homes.
Following the removal of the boundary, development has been scarce and in my experience near impossible to facilitate. This is in reference to either small in keeping residential extensions and renovations or one of self build homes.
There has been the introduction of new build housing, which I will add are not self builds. It is my understanding that this new housing was the main cause for the settlement boundary to be removed.
However, many of the applications at the time were passed at appeal due to Cheshire east failing to have a 5 year housing supply. Many of which I will add were in open countryside.
There is in fact proof of the neighbourhood plan protecting the local area, even with the Brereton heath settlement boundary in place.
An 11 home development was refused within the settlement boundary of BH
And a further 5 home development was refused within the settlement boundary of BH
Whereas a 6 home development was approved at appeal in open countryside, outside of the settlement boundary.
Following the removal of the settlement boundary several applications for simple extensions and renovations have been refused by Cheshire east. Many of which were supported by the parish council.
Settlement and infill boundaries review 2020
Section 2.76 states - The Brereton Neighbourhood Plan was made on 29 March 2016 and Policy HOU01 defines settlement boundaries for Brereton Green and Brereton Heath which replace the Brereton Green settlement boundary and Brereton Heath infill boundary defined in the Congleton Borough Local Plan.
In table 1 of the settlements review Brereton Heath is described as a “village with a defined settlement boundary”.
During the assessment of spatial form it should be noted that Brereton Heath and Brereton Green are given the same description, word for word. “Relatively large single cluster with a coherent spatial form and critical mass of buildings”
Brereton Heath within the review was flagged as a borderline village and therefore was included in a population review.
500 residents was the suggested aim
Brereton heaths population was 454. Only 46 residents short.
Out of the 32 borderline settlements assessed Brereton heath was 1 of only 3 to have over 350 residents. These other two borderline settlements went on to be classed as villages. The fourth largest was Nether Alderley with 332, over 100 less than Brereton heath.
Following the assessment 34 areas were defined as villages - 16 of these are smaller than Brereton heath, including Brereton Green. With the smallest having only 51 houses, compared to Brereton heaths 175. Brereton Green only has 152. On average villages have 74 fewer homes than Brereton heath.
And section 3.20 states - “there is no consistent definition of a village for the purpose of limited infilling”
Further demonstrating that Brereton Heath could have been classed as an infill village.
It should also be noted that the review in section 2.19 it states - “blanket policies restricting housing development in some settlements and preventing other settlements from expanding should be avoided unless their use can be supported by robust evidence”
The review goes on to state in section 8.5 the boundary is to be reviewed by the parish council.
8.5 - The settlements of Brereton Heath and Calveley also have settlement boundaries defined in neighbourhood plans. It is recommended that, following consultation with the relevant neighbourhood planning group and/or parish council, the SADPD considers whether it is appropriate to include wording to confirm that these settlement boundaries will continue to apply, with areas within the boundaries not falling within the open countryside.
This would also suggest that the removal of the boundary was purely subjective and without community consultation it’s hard to say if it reflected the opinions and wishes of the residents of Brereton Heath.
Rural housing needs survey 2013 (https://www.breretonparishcouncil.org.uk/download/neighbourhood_plan_docs_2/SDC10-Consultation-3-Brereton-Rural-Housing-Needs-Report.pdf)
Within the rural housing needs survey of 2013 it was concluded that a total of 32 houses might be required, of which 17 would be for current Brereton residents.
Of these 32 houses 26 were stated to be desired for a son or daughter to stay in the local area.
The policies set out in the new draft plan do not support any kind of achievable self builds/ development to support this housing need, which 13 years on will have only grown in demand.
Furthermore, most development in the parish that has occurred since the survey cannot be considered as affordable or self builds.
Effects of re-classing Brereton Heath as an infill boundary
Within the new HOUS01 policy set out in the new neighbourhood plan it states-
“Brereton Green is identified as an ‘infill village’ within the Open Countryside. Within this infill village boundary (identified within map 1), new developments which demonstrate compliance with policy PG 10 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (SADPD) may be permitted.”
Policy PG10 states - Outside of the village infill boundaries shown on the adopted policies map, development
proposals will not be considered to be ‘limited infilling in villages’ when applying LPS policies
PG 3 and PG 6.
PG 3 is in relation to Green Belt of which Brereton Parish has none.
Policy PG6 in summary states that development outside of settlement boundaries can only be permitted if:
• Within the Open Countryside only development that is essential for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation, public infrastructure, essential works undertaken by public service authorities or statutory undertakers, or for other uses appropriate to a rural area will be permitted.
• It represents infill
• It is a reuse of an existing building
• It is a replacement dwelling not materially larger than the original
• Extensions which are not disproportionate to the existing dwelling
• Development essential for business purposes
• Development essential for the conservation or enhancement of a heritage asset.
No where in these policies does it allow for development around or next to settlements. The development has to be within the settlement and therefore it is reasonable to assume that reinstating the boundary will not result in over development of the area.
It should also be noted that Brereton Green has retained its boundary and since has not become a hub for development either within or adjoining the settlement boundary.
This lack of development is also reflected in many other small infill settlements which kept their boundaries within the review. For example - Acton, Arclid, Ashley, Astbury, Church Minshull, Eaton, Gawsworth, Hankelow, Hassall Green, Henbury, High Legh, Higher Hudersfield, Hough, Mount Pleasant, Over Peover, Pickmere, Plumley, Rainow, Styal, Sutton, The Bank and Wybunbury.
HOUS02
I object to this policy as it makes reference to SC6 of the Cheshire east local plan. Policy SC6 makes development/home improvements difficult to achieve in Brereton parish as we have a very small number of -
Local service centres
Settlements boundaries
Existing employment
Educational facilities
Health facilities
Retail services
Or an up to date housing needs survey.
HOUS03 self builds
I object to the policy due to the following-
The policy represents an extremely restrictive view on self builds, anyone in the parish outside of Brereton Green or the new Holmes chapel settlement has no hope of building a self build dwelling. Furthermore, the settlements of Brereton Green and Holmes Chapel are so tightly packed that again the opportunity for self build housing is scarce.
This goes against the statement in the housing development objective of
“There is a need for housing development in Brereton parish”
&
The statement within the evidence and justification of HOUS03
“These (self builds) represent an opportunity for local people to continue to live locally”
