2019 October: Local Plan Major Modifications - Page 2
MM21 details 1026 dwellings for Cheadle alone in less than 15 years. With a UK average occupancy of 2.4 residents per household’ this relates to a population increase of 2,462 residents on an existing population of 12,165 which would relate to a swell of over 20%.
The promotion of a commuter/service town with access to a HS2 hub at Crewe will have minimal impact on the vitality of the town but maximum impact on the environment and accessibility of the town with increased road traffic and demand on our schools, doctors and dentists.
Further, In addition to the 2016 ONS Local Authority Population figures published April 2019, the headline ONS base figures for 2018 have just been published (21st Oct 2019) they reflect a further National population growth drop with respect to the 2016 Figures, now 400,000 lower by 2028 and 900,000 lower by 2043. This reflects a national population growth drop of over ½ million over the local plan period in comparison to the 2016 base figures above.
The ONS have consistently reduced population prediction figures since 2010 and none of this has been reflected in the local plan.
The planned level of housing should factor in a wider set of metrics, examples include:
Consultation responses 2009,2010,2012,2014,2015,2017,2019 Over 5,500 Responses
Local Petitions to Central Government
SMDC Responses to community engagements on Strategy (e.g. the big debate)
2015 Road traffic Surveys for Cheadle
Local Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) level readings for Cheadle [2]
Climate Change Act 2008
UK Committee on Climate Change - Risk Assessments 2012 and 217
UK Committee on Climate Change - Reducing UK emissions 2019
ONS Population Predictions
DCLG Housing Projections
Campaign to Protect Rural England guidance
Current huge Level of undeveloped Planning Applications (nationally and locally) and land banking
Collaboration with the Potteries to support the DEFA Air Quality Plan UK0014 2017 e.g Sect 4.3
DCLG Guidance on Transport Assessment 2007
Instead all the above is ignored in favour of a single [3] flawed ‘Oxford Economics Model’, which sits at odds with the local community.
2) MM2 Implementation and Monitoring
(Including other references to Implementation and/or Monitoring MM8 7.24, SS3, MM9, MM54, MM55)
In the context of a local plan that sits at odds with realistic ONS statistics and is against the aspirations of the local community, it is not reasonable to introduce an ‘Implementation and Monitoring’ process, on the level of housing build, if the objective of the Implementation is to continually leverage development at any cost especially if the process is increasingly against the wishes of the local community, the environment and a sustainable future.
Examples of leveraging development would include,
Accepting arguments for reducing or dropping affordable housing
Pressing for approval of houses that do not meet M2 Accessibility standards for older age
Dropping 106 commitments or failing to contribute to the required commitment to infrastructure
Producing houses that do not meet national NDSS recommendations on room sizes eg. Bedrooms for health and well-being
Forcing additional land release due to undeveloped sites e.g. land banking
Allowing developments with infrastructure issues (road congestion, road safety concerns, environmental impact)
Allowing developments that do not meet the needs of the local community e.g lack of starter homes, lack of provision for the elderly such as bungalows
Allowing developments with inadequate parking, street furniture, curbs, footpaths drainage etc
It is our opinion that the planned housing levels are excessive, will place unsustainable pressure on our infrastructure not least our roads, has the potential to damage the character of the town and is not sensitive to a sustainable environmental policy. It does not align with the aspirations of the local community ascertained through numerous consultations and as such the planned level of housing should be significantly reduced (I.e. by over 50%) and any assessment of build against unrealistic targets should be removed. This reduction can be done on a proportional (pro-rata) basis without any further impact on the local plan.
3) There is no ongoing evidence that the Duty to co-operate with Stoke on-Trent and the Potteries is taking place with a focus on regeneration of sustainable Brownfield sites around road and rail networks in a way that promotes a long term need to address green and sustainable housing policies and for a co-ordinated transport policy to reduce pollution, our carbon footprint and address long term health concerns in encouraging a commuter town strategy. There is a need to ensure our annual average Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) levels are below 40ug/m3 and not to increase that figure. Without a co-ordinated policy including public transport that level is set to increase to unacceptable levels with the promotion of a Cheadle as a commuter /service town.
To Make the Plan Sound
i) The planned level of housing should be significantly reduced (I.e. by over 50%).This reduction can be done on a proportional (pro-rata) basis without any further impact on the local plan.
ii) Any assessment of housing build against unrealistic targets should be removed. Unrealistic targets would be figures that don’t tally with consistent national metrics (ONS figures), the local community and a sustainable environmental strategy.
iii) Genuine collaboration with Stoke on-Trent and the Potteries to work on a long term sustainable strategy for the reasons stated.
Cheadle Unite
cheadleunite@dsl.pipex.com
www.cheadleunite.co.uk
Comments Page 1
