Draft Alsager Town Strategy: Full Report of Consultation Contents

Transcription

Draft Alsager Town Strategy: Full Report of Consultation
Contents
Draft Alsager Town Strategy: Full Report of Consultation...................................................................... 1
Overall Response ................................................................................................................................ 3
Q1 Vision ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Q2 Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 11
1 Creating Sustainable Communities ............................................................................................ 12
2 Town Centre ............................................................................................................................... 16
3 A Balanced Local Economy......................................................................................................... 20
4 Infrastructure and Services ........................................................................................................ 23
5 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................... 26
6 Village Character ........................................................................................................................ 29
Q3 Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 33
1 Housing ...................................................................................................................................... 34
2 Town Centre ............................................................................................................................... 41
3 A Balanced Local Economy......................................................................................................... 46
4 Sustainable Communities........................................................................................................... 49
5 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................... 53
6 Village Character and Environment ........................................................................................... 57
7 Infrastructure and Services ........................................................................................................ 61
8 Deliverability and Viability ......................................................................................................... 64
Q4 Potential Development Options .................................................................................................. 66
Site A ............................................................................................................................................. 67
Site B ............................................................................................................................................. 73
Site C ............................................................................................................................................. 79
Site D ............................................................................................................................................. 86
Site J .............................................................................................................................................. 89
Site E.............................................................................................................................................. 93
Site F .............................................................................................................................................. 99
Site G ........................................................................................................................................... 104
Site H ........................................................................................................................................... 107
Site I............................................................................................................................................. 114
Q5 Development Principles ............................................................................................................ 117
Area A: Former MMU Campus .................................................................................................... 117
Area B: Twyfords ......................................................................................................................... 122
Area C: Town Centre ................................................................................................................... 127
Q7 Infrastructure Priorities ............................................................................................................. 132
Q8 Other Infrastructure Priorities................................................................................................... 134
Q9 Additional Comments ................................................................................................................ 137
Overall Response
A total of 222 representations were received on the draft Alsager Town Strategy.
Of the 171 respondents who entered their age details, 10% of people who took part in the
consultation were under the age of 26; 53% were aged 26 to 65 and 37% were aged 66 and over.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Overall Response
Page 3
Q1 Vision
Do you agree with the Vision as set out in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
81% of respondents answered this question
Yes (63%); No (37%)
Key themes from the consultation:
Comments:
I really want a supermarket, not a convenience store. All these potential new houses - where will we
shop? All my shopping is done out of town - I don't shop in Alsager as the 'mixed' shops are
convenience, therefore they don't carry a large range, are usually more expensive, and I cant shop in
9-5 hours so I have to go out of town to shop, therefore Alsager misses out.
Why is there always emphasis on "Growth"? Alsager is a delightful small village - why do we have to
grow and potentially change the make-up and character of the village.
I like the vision for Alsager, but I think we should be careful not to lose green spaces.
Add - well maintained roads suitable for cyclists to use.
Disagree most strongly to Area O being designed for development of the evening economy. Most
suited to Town centre.
Need to improve footpaths, not just cycleways.
I agree that some of the old already developed sites should go for housing, but I do not agree with
letting some of the playing fields around Alsager go for housing.
Difficult to see how a 'village feel' will be maintained with a planned 1,000 extra houses!
Some of it.
No mention of adequate shopping facilities - an urgent need for Alsager to bring people back to the
town.
Impressive. Sensible and clearly expressed.
It thinks about a different variety of people.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q1 Vision
Page 4
I think it is a great idea. But a hard one to achieve.
Believe it to be already achieved.
There are some good points, such as redeveloping brownfield sites and creating local jobs, but too
much is contradictory. For example, keeping a 'village' feel, yet wanting to increase the number of
houses, therefore the population, with the potential use of greenfield sites.
There's so much potential to use the existing sports facilities on the old MMU site as a massive
employment opportunity. It's one of the leading sports facilities in the country, so why not use it as it
is already built, but attract private investment for sports clinics, research, etc, which could become
well-known all over the UK. This surely makes more sense than building houses on it instead. That's
not doing anything for Alsager, apart from pushing up the population. I'd personally say that this
document needs to be revised and a few more ideas generated.
I agree with the vision as stated. But fear that it is a doomed aspiration given the recent approval for
the expansion of the Co-Op store that has already seen the devastation of Fairview Car Park. A major
retailer like the Co-Op will need to make the store profitable to recover their costs. This will inevitably
destroy the stated visions of: ‘A distinctive character and village feel’ & ‘A vibrant town centre’.
All of the factors describing the 'vision' are welcome, but overall they seem to add up to 'more of the
same' and could apply at any target date.
Surely the 'vision' for 2030 should be rather more than this ‘We live in very changing times so a lot
will be different in 18 years time. There will be many changes in our environment (e.g. the impact of
climate change, concerns about energy provision, concerns about food and water). There will be
changes in what we do as technology develops and major political and economic structures are
reconfigured. There will be changes in our population as people live longer and become more
ethnically diverse’.
What is the vision for Alsager in the midst of all of this?? . People are major shapers of communities.
This can be a constructive observation. The development of particular employment opportunities
within Alsager can be 'used' as a means of implementing a community vision rather than just seeing
what happens. But this requires embedding such community characteristics into the vision.
Further Alsager is a settlement amongst others both adjacent and further afield. We must get the
right balance between what is provided locally and what we can find elsewhere. We must also have a
view of what other communities can get from Alsager. What is it that we see Alsager providing which
can be valuable and accessible for others? Alsager is probably too large, in both population and in
geography to be viable as a community solely based on its 'centre'. Areas beyond the town centre will
exist in their own right with their own capabilities and characteristics. Connecting up the parts so
that, although each has its identity, the whole is 'Alsager' and more than the sum of its components is
probably a key idea.
I do not see any reason on why there should be a provision for 1,000 houses taking over another lot
of public accessible land.
Area A and J - would be interested on more specific info.
Good vision, your proposals do not deliver the vision, why include more greenfield sites.
With some reservations.
Both these sites are brownfield and would provide enough building for Alsager.
I agree for limited development within Alsager.
I do not believe the vision for Alsager includes any additional housing. While I am not against housing
development per se, it is always seen as a necessity, when in reality it has the potential to damage
the current Village feel of the Alsager - and we are a village, not a town.
Page 5
Totally agree.
Excellent.
Using too many greenfield sites.
I agree with some but not all of it.
Re-use housing - buildings.
Partly.
Difficult to disagree with these 'motherhood' objectives.
Bland - all things to all men. Needs to be clear and concise.
Ill-informed decisions.
Good.
I don't want more houses as it will be cramped.
Apart from the "Reduced need to travel" - need to ensure that rural residents can easily travel into
the town for essential services such as healthcare and food shopping.
As the vision is looking to create a town with "A balanced local economy providing a variety of
employment opportunities" then the last statement should also include " where people can live,
work, shop and take part etc" because hopefully the town will not then become a "commuter town".
Alsager is a pleasant place to live and in my opinion the Town Strategy aims to secure that position
with a balanced development strategy.
I am not in agreement with the quantity of new property that you are stating as being required.
The strategy appears to contain several direct contradictions. I strongly disagree with the Council
considering the use of Green Belt land for housing development. I live on a road adjoining one of the
proposed development sites, I'm concerned that the development will devalue my house and impact
extremely negatively upon my quality of life should the development go ahead. I'm disgusted that the
Council would consider residential development on greenfield sites when there are already ample
brownfield sites available in the immediate vicinity. I object in the strongest possible terms to
greenfield site development and would leave the area if this plan was agreed.
Yes in principal, I have some concerns that I will point out later.
I disagree with the housing aspect.
Too much emphasis on Green Belt land and playing fields when there are other brownfield sites ripe
for redevelopment.
Broadly agree with the vision, but have strong concerns over housing development policy. As a result
of the latest Government legislation Councils will be forced to develop brownfield sites and town
centres before looking to more development on the edge of town such as the greenfield site off
Crewe Road currently the subject of a planning application for 65 houses. There are three brownfield
sites in Alsager which under the new law should be developed first. There should also be an explicit
recognition of the intrinsic value of rural areas that are not protected as Green Belt.
Generally it is good, however there should be issues with some of the proposed alternative sites, as
they are green fields and should remain to continue with the feel of the 'village that we currently
have. There are enough brownfield sites that are currently available, and remain unused. The
proposal for so much new housing is maybe too much for this community to accept if it is to remain
with a village character. Some proposals for housing will cause extreme traffic issues, I think about
Page 6
Fanny's Croft area, Audley Road is already a nightmare, what with increased railway use, barriers
down and parking all along, then to add more traffic to it from that area is ridiculous.
But without the alternative development areas.
The Plan draws too much on government PR Planning Jargon. I am not alone in finding phrases such
as 'sustainable development' vapid and meaningless in relation to the lives most people lead. There is
an overall lack of credibility around the aspirations and vague promises of infrastructural
improvement in the Plan in the context of existing poor road maintenance and repair. The notion that
Developers will pay for such infrastructural improvement is not convincing as they can only be
required to deal with road access etc in the immediate vicinity of the development. The Plan reads
like a document that is essentially proposing to sell off land to developers for additional housing
which will do little for the 'village' or town character.
I feel there is already enough housing in Alsager. The town grew initially to house the influx of
munitions workers but if Alsager gets any larger, it stands to lose it's identity as a small rural town
and the 'village feel' it has managed to retain so far.
Particular emphasis should be on excellent sporting facilities based at MMU for use of all ages and
abilities
The town centre is too disjointed. There is no access to Milton Park from there and it is difficult to
move around due to the cross roads. It would be ideal if the road could be diverted round the back of
the shops and the centre pedestrianised. This would require the knocking down of the shops to the
South side of Lawton Road but it would definitely be worthwhile. Also, the park should be opened up
from the back of the bank and the council storage units moved to out of town so that a small car park
and pavilion or restaurant could be built there instead.
No need for affordable housing.
Increased provision of Leisure and maintained green space provision within the built up areas.
Need urgent consideration of what to do with library. It will be very soon irrelevant with the advent
of E-books.
A network of green spaces is important to me - there is insufficient detail on the planning notes to say
a straight yes or no to "do you agree with the vision as sent out in the draft Alsager town strategy".
Alsager is a town - the population is 15,000 and growing. Its facilities need to reflect the fact it is a
town and its potential to grow not be limited. It desperately needs a large supermarket (larger then
new co-op will be) for families to do their weekly shop at. This would keep us in Alsager to shop
rather than going to Crewe/ Wolstanton. The leakage of money would then be less and the other
facilities and shops in the town be used more rather than lie empty or struggle. It also needs a petrol
station at affordable prices, a stationary shop- Partners/ WHSmith and affordable clothes shops
rather than ridiculous boutiques.
I do not agree in any way of building on Green Belt land. redeveloping disused sites (MMU) I do agree
with.
I do not agree in the Vision in its entirety, for example 'a reduced need to travel'. The strategy is to
grow Alsager by 1,000 new home in under 20 years equivalent to increasing the population by
approximately 20%. Alsager is mainly a commuter town and with that rate of growth more people
will need to travel out of town to work.
Alsager is a small town NOT a village, too many people still have a rose-tinted view that parts of it
remain a village - perhaps it's the sight of all those white haired people at the U3A in the Civic Centre
on a Monday morning!
Page 7
There is too much talk of building new homes, but there no plan to make the shopping centre viable.
The Co-op has been allowed to massacre any chance of a vibrant area, and whilst the plan talks of
maintaining a village feel, this has been lost. Nowhere in the plan can I see any effort to re-introduce
this. Once upon a time, the village supported independent green grocers, butchers, general grocers
and pharmacies. Now it is a street filled with hairdressers, beauty shops, take-aways and building
societies.
Some of the statements are subjective and vague. Whilst vision statements are generally broad it
doesn’t help clarity when terms such as 'A distinctive character' are used, what is this describing?
Also, why would you be trying to create a town with a 'village feel'. All very confusing.
I do not believe that we should be building houses on existing greenfield sites. We do not need both a
large Co-op and a Sainsbury’s on the Twyford’s site.
I think no more housing / retail buildings should be built on existing Green Belt / greenfield areas.
Only build on existing brownfield land!
The vision doesn't openly say that community must mean people of all ages - children, teens, young
adults, families and OAPs. They all need something different from the town.
The Vision has conflicting aims: Village feel/ town centre. Therefore unsure whether the planners
know the difference between a town and a village.
A network of greenspaces throughout the town: In the strategy it is proposed to build on play areas
and greenspaces.
A reduced need to travel doesn't make sense as it is not in any form of context. Building on play areas
as proposed will reduce the geographical locations of play areas.
I don't support building on Green Belt.
I would recommend that bullet point 3 be expanded to ensure that the 'vitality and viability' of the
town centre is also protected in the future. This would ensure that the Vision is in line with the
recently issued National Planning Policy Framework relating to retailing and town centres. I would
therefore recommend that it be re-worded as follows; 'A vital, viable and vibrant town centre'.
The Vision to create a vibrant Town Centre is noted. New River Retail and Scottish Widows
Investment Partnership (on behalf of the owners of the Market Centre, Crewe) seek further
clarification on the level of retail development the Council consider to be appropriate for
development in Alsager.
The vision needs to be set in its strategic context. The relevance and importance of CEC’s assembled
‘evidence base’ to the plan making process should also be addressed.
I disagree with planning proposals for housing.
Do we really need that many new houses? We need to develop sport and youth facilities. Green Belt
fields should not be touched.
Only agree with certain aspects of the vision. For example - do not agree with substantial housing
development.
The vision as set out in the plan is to keep a distinctive character and village feel and yet is to have
new housing. This is a contradiction. Alsager used to be a village but is now a town and more housing
would create a larger town with no village feel to it because it would no longer be a village. When
Green Belt is lost then what is created is an urban sprawl!
The vision as set out in the plan is to have a town with a network of greenspaces and easy access to
the open countryside. Alsager is a town with a network of greenspaces and easy access to the open
countryside. The vision is to create more houses building upon Green Belt land. We do not need more
houses. There are plenty for sale. At the moment we have a hose pipe ban. It would not be wise to
Page 8
build more houses with the inadequate supply of water that we are already experiencing.
The whole idea of having a vision for Alsager is to implement extra development and houses as
dictated by the European Union. It has nothing to do with our local needs for the future of Alsager. It
is high government dictates that are forcing over development. Southern Spain is a good example of
over development. The vision coming from the European Union dictates. We must preserve what we
have and strive to improve the facilities we currently enjoy whilst reporting to the government that
we cannot create the number of houses that they think we need. The government do not have the
answers and the disaster that this can cause is only too real in Southern Spain as an example.
Yes, with qualifications - no mention of Spiritual facilities - employment only mentioned in terms of
local economy - not sustainable employment for a good proportion of the population - green spaces
mentioned as a "network" - not as usable local spaces within reach of all residents.
But a village does not have a vibrant town centre. The 'village feel' is about location and green spaces.
Mostly.
In general principle.
What a load of bumph.
Not sure about the word 'vibrant' town. Prefer quiet, relaxed feel to 'village'.
BUT - can you have a 'vibrant' town centre and a 'village feel'? I would prefer 'relaxing and laid back'.
Not sure - some - not all.
Too much housing.
Area J. Page 8/9/10 this represent development creep. The MMU site alone provides enough space
for development.
Sounds great, but comes at too high a price with the loss of some key green space.
No as we want our green space, stop outsiders moving into the area and there would be better
communities.
Too many houses - no comment on schools provision for young people.
Should be carefully monitored so that the expansion happens slowly and is well controlled.
Retain sporting facilities and green spaces.
Encroaches on current 'green' fields (Area J north).
Question the term 'sustainable' - term vague and not clearly defined.
Too many contradictions.
Local focus very important especially as climate change, carbon emission reduction and economic
crisis bite.
Alsager certainly needs a facelift (some action).
But I do not agree 1,000 new houses are appropriate. That is too many.
Everyone would like a world like this.
Some parts I agree some I don't.
Do not agree with 'vision' of expansion of housing, i.e. new housing.
Page 9
Only certain parts of the vision.
In part, main vision okay, but plans not.
The plan in your booklet is unreadable a double page plan should have been used. Are there cost
benefits or are you just expressing rate payers to fund your fantasy?
Difficult not to. But the extent to which profit will influence outcomes is crucial - greenspaces! Trees!
But some strong reservations.
BAE Systems support the general vision set out in the Town Strategy, however an additional
reference is required in regard to the economic vision for the town. The strategy covers the future
economic vision for the town to some degree. However, achieving a balanced local economy
providing a variety of employment opportunities will depend on an appropriate level and mix of
employment land being available. Therefore, some reference should be made to the provision of
suitable employment land in the vision for Alsager.
The overall vision for Alsager is supported particularly in relation to providing a mix of new housing
and the need for a balanced economy. It will however be critical for the emerging Local Plan to
identify a clear policy direction to support sustainable growth at Alsager if the vision is to be
achieved. The Town Plan should make a clear link between the need for market housing in order to
deliver much needed affordable housing in Alsager for local residents.
Gladman support the Vision contained in the document that states that the town of Alsager requires
an appropriate level and mix of housing to support its future needs along with a balanced local
economy providing a variety of employment opportunities. We support the need to deliver at least
1,000 new dwellings in the town to 2030 but suggest, as stated in our general comments that this
figure should properly be determined through the Core Strategy and should reflect the housing need
identified in the SHMA.
CWT supports elements of the ‘vision’ for Alsager, which includes: ‘An enhanced network of green
spaces’, ‘maintenance and improvement of easy access to open countryside’, ‘Links to Milton Park’.
However, CWT is disappointed that there is no mention of wildlife and green space resources in or
near the town; for example: ‘Cranberry Moss LNR’ & ‘Cherry Lane Carr Woodland SBI’. Although
green space network enhancement forms part of the vision it features only as the lowest category in
the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) priority list; expenditure on amenity spaces is
‘desirable’. There is no further mention of green infrastructure apart from in the vision.
We support the vision for Alsager, particularly the following:
•
A strong feel of community and a healthy population.
•
An appropriate level and mix of new housing.
•
A reduced need to travel.
•
Easy access to the open countryside.
Page 10
Q2 Objectives
Do you agree with the Objectives in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
81% of respondents answered Objective 1 (Creating Sustainable Communities),84%
Objective 2 (Town Centre), 83% Objective 3 (Balanced Local Economy), 81% Objective 4
(Infrastructure and Services) 80% answered Objective 5 (Connectivity) and 83% answered
Objective 6 (Village Character).
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Objectives
Page 11
1 Creating Sustainable Communities
Do you agree with the Sustainable Communities Objective as set out in the draft Alsager Town
Strategy?
•
•
Yes (78%); No (22%)
Comments
Links into Staffordshire are important.
What are the "aspirations of the town"? There is already good quality housing and a very good mix
of types, sizes and tenures. There are obvious areas for any "necessary" small housing developments
(Twyford’s, Old MMU grounds) which are brownfield areas, ideal for redevelopment. Development
of any other locations (specifically the current Alsager Football Ground and Wood Park) would
deprive the community of a much valued and needed open space and green sector within an
already heavily populated area.
Develop Area O with 'wellness' businesses. This fits better with residential nature of this part of
town.
This cannot be done with the current proposals to convert the university campus into housing with a
few small units. More employment MUST be created. The place was gutted when the university left
with all its employment, and when Twyfords retrenched. We are fast becoming a commuter town
reliant on cars for everything. Can we tout the old campus for sports use, such as for disabled sports,
or as a centre of excellence for a sport? The Olympics should help, with some quick reinstatement of
a few facilities - we could house an off-Olympic Village training venue. It is good to target Radway
Green for new business, but the junction with Crewe Road needs improving. Especially in the
direction towards Alsager: there needs to be a lane created eastbound to pass 5 right turning cars at
the lights. More expensively, a bridge over the line would be a fantastic help.
Doubt that some of the locations identified for housing (MMU site) are sustainable - insufficient
infrastructure, especially sewerage and roads.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Sustainable Communities
Page 12
More focus on Cheshire East link. Alsager is not in Potteries / Staffordshire!
Without adequate shopping facilities within the town area, the community will not be sustainable as
a community - it has become a dormitory town & will become increasingly so.
I think this quite important.
Again agree with the objective as stated. But I disagree that a “Sustainable Community” has to be an
expanding one.
The three points in the draft strategy are ok but they do not completely cover the notion of
sustainable communities. Other factors include education, care, support for ethnic diversity as well
the need to include mention of some basic needs for sustainable existence in the light of, for
example, environmental and economic developments.
A certain amount of housing may be required but not on sites where the public use frequently for
leisure activities.
Was a travesty when the MMU swimming pool closed.
Jargon.
Why do we want a "Sports and Leisure hub"? What advantage would having all the facilities in one
place bring to the village? I believe dedicated and separate locations for the football ground, cricket
pitch and other facilities (currently at school/MMU sites) is a definite advantage to the whole village.
Totally agree on all points.
Re-use housing.
Good way of saving environment.
Sustainable communities will provide better work opportunities for young people coming out of
school rather than forcing them to move out of the area to seek a career. This also helps the local
community to provide a more rounded and integral population.
I believe the existing facilities and housing to be above the national average for the population and
area and so do not agree.
In my opinion increasing housing stock and developing areas actually has a negative effect on the
community.
But this needs Theme 4 and who would create and run a 'sports hub'? I assume not the Council since
they have already got rid of the Civic Centre.
Government PR jargon meaning what precisely?
The attainment of a sustainable community is fully supported with the correct balance of all the
ingredients that contribute to achieve this being provided on deliverable sites.
Existing seeds of 'sustainability' need to grow and blossom. Alsager should, in this coming decade,
become a soundly green 'transition town'.
I am not in favour of more housing as mentioned above. However, I do agree that amenities should
be accessible to all and meet all the needs of the residents. The MMU Campus currently has an
Olympic size pool, football pitches, tennis courts, drama and dance facilities. It would be shameful to
destroy all these facilities to replace them with housing and the problems related with the
development of housing estates.
Sounds like a bland wish list. Probably the same in every local plan up and down the UK.
Can’t comment yes or no as insufficient detail given. However, green spaces are very important to
Page 13
me.
Needs to include school provision with any expand of population as well as large supermarket and
petrol.
To be sustainable, the people in the community need facilities, services and amenities close to
where they live, and therefore are accessible to all, and not located in just one area.
I think that the facilities within Alsager are already as good as they would need to be for a town of
its size. Better leisure facilities would be nice, but with both Crewe and Stoke on the doorstep I
believe this is not necessary.
But much more needs to be done to reintroduce independent shops which will allow residents to
shop within the village.
The objective is fine the issue is deciding what level of housing meets the community need. The
current community does not need much more housing. Most of the people who would live in the
new houses would come from outside Alsager (as they did when Poppyfields was built). The
question is how much do we want to grow the community.
Conflicting objectives of a village feel with a vibrant town centre getting rid of green spaces also
conflicts with village feel and is bad for any community. Provision of good quality housing not
needed, many houses for sale and aren't selling, no mention of extra school places being provided.
The provision of extra housing when the village as a surplus of housing as shown by the number of
house for sale and the length of time they have been on sale and the number of houses withdrawn
from the market because of no take up. To meet the leisure needs of the residents by building on
play areas and greenfield sites contradictory.
Disagree strongly with the proposals for Area C. Real concerns that the "Sainsbury’s proposal" in
Area B will destroy any aspirations for the development and ongoing success of the town centre,
and then there will be no sustainability - just dormitory areas.
Not when you are taking away the vey few fields we have in Alsager.
But not substantial development.
1st para.-to provide good quality housing -- we have this already. The houses in Alsager already
meet the current needs of the Town adequately. We do not have enough water though at the
moment though. There is a water shortage. There are plenty of houses for sale all at different prices.
All with easy access to the countryside. We do not need any more. If the government say so they are
wrong and are only doing what the European Union are dictating.
BUT we will lose the 'village feel' if we lose green spaces that segregate Alsager from neighbouring
communities.
Why do we need more houses if we are creating a village theme.
Environmental aspects should be included, such as preservation of open space and woodland.
Having lived in Alsager for over forty years - various local plans have never been, in my time, realised
fully.
We need low cost starter homes, people are already being priced out of the area they have grown
up in. But not at the loss of the green space.
No as we want our green space. Stop outsiders moving into the area and there would be better
communities.
High quality housing and social housing needed but too many houses identified.
But not on Alsager Football Ground or football pitches (Area C or Cedar Avenue Playing Fields).
Page 14
All too vague in its definitions.
I question the need for 1,000 homes - there is no evidence.
But can the present sewerage disposal and drains - which already cause problems - cope?
Building on greenfield sites does not help.
We need to sustain the community we already have before building more homes.
How can you sustain it if amenities can not cope e.g. schools.
Words.
Alsager is large enough, gardens have been built in recent years, green space has reduced.
Sustainable here implies growth, not sustainable in 'hard times'.
Sustainable should be your main criteria not wishful thinking.
However, there should be some reference to the economic needs of residents.
Objective 1 should make a greater reference to housing delivery to ensure the vision of providing a
minimum of 1,000 new dwellings by 2030. The objective needs to clearly state the level of new
housing to be delivered which should be based on a robust and credible evidence base which should
be determined by the Core Strategy.
We support the 6 objectives set out, particularly the following:- ~ Objective 1: Creating sustainable
communities . We consider that residential development of the Fanny's Croft site off Audley Road
will help to achieve the vision and the objectives for Alsager.
Page 15
2 Town Centre
Do you agree with the Town Centre Objective in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (84%); No (16%)
Comments
Nowhere to shop for food (where you could do a full shop for a family).
The two parts of the main shopping district should be more closely linked together.
I think Milton Park is linked to the town centre well enough already. I think it would lose a sense of
peace if it was too open to it.
Develop evening economy here.
Aim to move noisy social activities from library to Civic Centre in order to minimise disturbance to
people using the library for its proper purpose.
I regard this as a key aspect.
Milton Park and the town centre are differing resources. I agree with the first part of the statement
‘To improve the vibrancy, prosperity, distinctiveness and quality of Alsager Town Centre, by
encouraging and supporting an appropriate range of shops and services, enhancing the street
scene’. But do not agree with the rest of the statement at all.
There is no doubt that a strong town centre providing amenities which give a positive and cohesive
appeal to the residents of Alsager and others (visiting from elsewhere) is a good objective. Such
provision needs to be related to what will be available in other areas outside the town centre of
course. Alsager cannot have all of its amenities in the town centre. Again a key objective must be for
the centre to be a focus but also a means of integrating all of the various components.
New Co-op already in build and development plans for a new Sainsbury's on the old Twyfords site
already in the offing. These projects alone should be supported by improving existing road links, etc.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Town Centre
Page 16
Definitely require a more diverse range of shops.
Unrealistic, shopping habits have changed. 30 years out of date.
Area K should be retained for car parking.
Too focused on protecting existing poor range of shops. Not enough emphasis on attracting new
retail outlets (not take-aways).
It needs a town centre - it's all food.
Alsager had its town centre damaged when the road system was altered to accommodate greater
traffic travelling through the town to go out to the two large employer factories at each end of the
town. The new pan helps to redress the balance whilst still being mindful of the health and safety of
motorists and pedestrians alike.
I don't think the town needs anymore cafe type establishments in the centre. Some towards the
lower end (Crewe end) of the town would be welcome. Car parking and speeding along the main
road is not acceptable, particularly around the chip shop and Chinese take away areas at the week
end.
More public spaces needed for people to gather and relax.
More retail.
Providing planning policy limits the number of similar businesses. We already have too many takeaways and hairdressers.
Enhancing the town centre as it stands seems reasonable. It is, however, notable that the Co-op has
been inadequate for years and has even done nothing with its Planning Permission until there was a
Sainsbury's consultation about use of the Twyford site - a proposal that makes sense in allowing
access via the main Kidsgrove Road, a much-needed local petrol station and a decent supermarket
which will save existing residents travelling to out-of-town supermarkets elsewhere (Sandbach,
Kidsgrove, Crewe etc. In my view, the Sainsbury's proposal continues to make sense despite the
belated development of the Co-op and, indeed, the competition may be necessary in this case to
serve the residents of Alsager.
The town centre needs to be bolstered as it provides a range of facilities and forms an important
part of the image of the town. All necessary measures to encourage maintenance of its vitality and
viability need to be pursued.
Plus: 'to sustain and promote a vibrant weekly market in the town'. Ensure too that the presence
and proximity of the rail station is always acknowledged in the town centre - e.g. the rail timetable
information displays at the Civic Centre; direction signage throughout the town. Maintenance in all
planning matters etc, as agreed several years ago at relevant, well attended town meeting, that the
station be regarded and promoted as the southern gateway to (and thence part of) the town centre.
Alsager needs a better range of shops and boutiques to make it worth visiting.
The town centre is too disjointed. There is no access to Milton Park from there and it is difficult to
move around due to the cross roads. It would be ideal if the road could be diverted round the back
of the shops and the centre pedestrianised. This would require the knocking down of the shops to
the South side of Lawton Road but it would definitely be worthwhile. Also, the park should be
opened up from the back of the bank and the council storage units moved to out of town so that a
small car park and pavilion or restaurant could be built there instead.
A vibrant diverse high street with small business, restaurants, local shops and a good variety of
quality shops. Including a small number of charity shops, not the proliferation currently starting in
Page 17
lieu of alternative range and quality.
Too bland and too vague.
Should not all be focussed on town centre - an out of town development of decent quality and size
would mean that more people would stay within Alsager for food shop and therefore use the other
shops in the town centre rather than use the ones in Crewe or Wolstanton or wherever else they
find themselves.
I agree that smaller shops, and more diverse shops should be encouraged, but better links between
the town and Milton park? Milton park is in the town centre.
This can only be achieved by reactivating a lively shopping centre and ensuring the Co-op are not
allowed to cripple anything which can be regarded as competition to them.
Please avoid felling any mature trees. I deplore the recent removal of mature trees in the current
Co-op redevelopment. Any new planting will be an ineffective substitute in the lifetimes of many
residents.
Paved areas should be improved.
There is an abundance of charity shops in the town centre and empty shops which indicates there is
no need for extra shops. The new development at Close Lane ended up with estate agent and a
supermarket. Not shops as people envisaged.
Again, I would recommend that this objective make specific reference to improve and 'protect' the
vitality and viability of the town centre. I would also recommend that this objective be more specific
to include the following; reference to a town centre boundary being established as part of the plan
(including primary and secondary shopping areas) and ensuring that new retail development is
directed to within the town centre boundary and resist large scale retail proposals outside of the
town centre. The latter would ensure that the plan is consistent with the retail evidence base (White
Young Green Cheshire Retail Study Update 2011) prepared in support of the emerging Core Strategy
which identified no pressing need for large scale additional retail floorspace in Alsager up to 2026.
New River Retail and Scottish Widows Investment Partnership (on behalf of the owners of the
Market Centre, Crewe) seek further clarification on the level of retail development the Council
consider to be appropriate for development in Alsager.
But this cannot be seen in splendid isolation. The town must retain a sensible balance of different
retail outlets and not allowed to become dominated by Charity shops, restaurants and take-aways.
Too much emphasis on larger one-stop shopping enterprises will lead to the death of the town
centre.
If the land owners lower their rent this would encourage more alternative individual shops to come
into the Town.
No mention of town centre car parking for all the centre facilities, and not linked to any one
enterprise or shop: - for cafes, open spaces, library, civic centre, churches as well as the shops.
How do you join town centre and Milton park with a main road dividing them?
Within moderation. The village feel must be maintained.
The distinctiveness of Alsager is that it is NOT vibrant - it's sleepy (most of the time) Alsager and
that's good.
Looks good already a cash investment like Poynton would really work.
Looks nice as it is but could be made better.
This is part of our town which requires immediate attention now. Is there the danger of developing
Page 18
two town centres? Remember Twyfords is not in the hub of the town?
Improved link - pathways between Fairview Ave and Green Drive - floods in winter and impassable.
A link through Sandbach Road South car park to Milton Park could be made (fenced walkway!).
Town centre open spaces to be kept and developed.
'Vibrancy' another meaningless term.
The Town Yard should be used for facilities not housing.
Because of potential Sainsbury’s developments retail centre impossible.
Too many charity shops and estate agents. Some of old shops not fit for purpose.
Looks drab - awful shops - too many estate agents and take-aways.
Too many take-aways.
More retail shops - less charity and food take-aways.
Top and bottom need to be united (Bank Corner and Crewe Road).
Alsager has lost how it was and will not exist like it was. Not now good.
The 'secret' areas like Milton Gardens (much improved) help with the character also it does not
want exposing to the main road.
No mention of the other sheltered housing area at the lower end of the village. Milton Park private. Those lower down the village are isolated.
We support the 6 objectives set out. We consider that residential development of the Fanny's Croft
site off Audley Road will help to achieve the vision and the objectives for Alsager.
Page 19
3 A Balanced Local Economy
Do you agree or disagree with the Balanced Local Economy Objective in the draft Alsager Town
Strategy?
•
•
Yes (88%); No (13%)
Comments
We need to match the skills and talent available locally with the opportunities, providing jobs that
mean people can afford to live and work locally.
This cannot be done with the current proposals to convert the University Campus into housing with
a few small units. More employment MUST be created. The place was gutted when the University
left with all its employment, and when Twyfords retrenched. We are fast becoming a commuter
town reliant on cars for everything. Can we tout the old campus for sports use, such as for disabled
sports, or as a centre of excellence for a sport? The Olympics should help, with some quick
reinstatement of a few facilities - we could house an off-Olympic Village training venue. It is good to
target Radway Green for new business, but the junction with Crewe Road needs improving.
Especially in the direction towards Alsager: there needs to be a lane created eastbound to pass 5
right turning cars at the lights. More expensively, a bridge over the line would be a fantastic help.
Not a proper sentence - I believe it should read "... and that uses innovative and .."
The town centre already suffers from an over preponderance of a certain type of business. The
expansion of the Co-Op store will polarize this effect even more. Unfortunately, it is too late to stop
the Co-Op scheme the damage has been done. This object has little chance of being achieved.
A sound objective, though I suspect there is a weakness in the detail. What exactly does balanced
mean? For example would it be acceptable if a major manufacturer sought to set up a factory? Or a
major distribution/warehousing facility? Or a large scale customer servicing company? Or a private
health clinic? Or the office of a public service? Or a digital design company? Presumably all or any.
There should be a link to the vision which would help direct views.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Balanced Local Economy
Page 20
What sort of employment opportunities do you think are going to be brought into Alsager?
Not achievable, the proximity of Stoke and Crewe, plus M6 link make this so.
Alsager’s USP is as a residential community.
We need to attract new types of employment - more white collar jobs.
It needs more shops, especially car shops.
A good mix of general retail and specialist retail as well as strong support for "local" businesses will
encourage residents to shop within the town without the need to go elsewhere. Shopping surveys in
towns which have achieved such a balance have proven that the overall cost of shopping is almost
the same as if the shopping is done in out of town centres. It is also a proven fact that £1 spent in
the local economy returns nearly 3 times as much as a £1 spent in out of town retail centres. A
balanced local economy is actually better for the national economy.
Alsager needs to preserve and enhance its existing retail and light industrial infrastructure. The loss
of Twyford’s manufacturing is a blow to the employment prospects for the young of the town. The
proposed Sainsbury's store on the old Twyford’s site is the right store in the wrong place. There is a
danger that it will pull trade out of the town.
But not at the cost to the village small trader by encouraging the likes of Sainsbury’s etc
Also developers must provide starter unit premises in their developments that is actually build and
market them.
To be opposed to a 'balanced economy would be like voting against 'motherhood'. The question is
how such an economy is created.
Subject to the outcome of the Employment Land Review choices need to be made regarding the
future of existing employment sites and decisions taken on the continuing protection of those
needed resources and if appropriate reallocation of sites that are not deemed necessary or
considered obsolete for their continuing use as employment sites.
Small scale, high tech industry should be encouraged.
Too vague.
However, this is badly expressed and difficult to understand.
Difficult to have a thriving local economy where a large supermarket is proposed, as that will take all
business away from the smaller businesses
The types of business needs to be put in context otherwise this is not an objective but whistling in
the wind.
A large supermarket on the edge of Alsager will not help the High Street to develop for local uses. It
will put the economy out of balance.
But again I'm wary of the development of the MMU site. Are there any further proposals for the
current educational establishments? There seems to a considerable emphasis of providing new
housing. Which secondary school will accommodate this significant rise in pupil numbers?
It all sounds very good but also sound Jargonish. Fast broadband for all.
This seems a lot of wooly words that could mean anything: - who is developing economic well
being? Or should this say creating an environment to encourage economic well being by business
being enabled to flourish? - For whom is this economic well being - the whole town or the individual
businesses?
Page 21
Creating jobs for local people would be a good thing.
Not achievable / Stoke on Trent will always attract central funding.
No to Sainsbury’s or any other large supermarket.
Yes! So that means no to big supermarkets.
Where is the opportunity now houses are to go on 'employment' land - Twyford’s?
The 'balance' is unsustainable because of density of residential versus industry.
Why are there more and more charity shops and again take-aways. No balance.
Alsager has always been a small town which feeds Stoke and Crewe etc.
But would need help with your definition of balanced. Develop Radway small industrial site and
railway station.
There are too many empty shops, try too fill these before thinking about balanced.
Sainsbury's supports the Council's ambition outlined in Objective 3 to develop economic well-being
and a balanced local economy that:
•
provides access to employment opportunities
•
retains existing businesses and allows them to grow
• allows new business to develop, and -promotes the use of innovative and new technologies.
Sainsbury's would like policies to highlight the important contribution that retail development can
make towards achieving such a balanced local economy, by providing a significant number of jobs
that are both accessible and attainable to local people.
BAE Systems consider that objective 3 needs to have more intent in order to develop a framework
for economic growth in Alsager. The town has recently lost two major employers (MMU and
Twyford’s) which establishes a need to improve access to and opportunities for employment for
local people. Objective 3 is currently focused on the retention of existing businesses and to some
extent growth of new opportunities, which BAE Systems support in principle. However, the Town
Strategy presents an opportunity for further economic growth and subsequently more ambitious
objectives are required. This would complement the strategy to allocate sites for 1,000 new homes,
which needs to be matched with a commitment to economic growth which goes beyond the
retention of existing facilities. This would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework
and the Government’s commitment to economic growth.
We support the 6 objectives set out, particularly the following - Objective 3: A balanced local
economy. We consider that residential development of the Fanny's Croft site off Audley Road will
help to achieve the vision and the objectives for Alsager.
Page 22
4 Infrastructure and Services
Do you agree or disagree with the Infrastructure and Services Objective in the draft Alsager Town
Strategy?
•
•
Yes (82%); No (18%)
Comments
Some.
These are mandatory not a vision or objective.
Should include reference to high-speed broadband.
Absolutely essential, key areas - roads, sewerage, safety (schools, leisure centre, and increase
traffic) need to be prioritised.
Services need improving.
I am not at all clear as to what is covered by the term 'infrastructure'. Looking further into the
'Themes' it seems to be 'appropriate infrastructure to enable new development and additional
burial provision'. Surely the term is rather broader embracing the necessary fundamental
systems/works necessary for the carrying out of activities of the community; not only for new
developments but for the improvement/enhancement of existing elements. Again sustainability
issues intrude. How about Alsager developing its own energy service through community
development of a wide range of energy sources? How about waste disposal? How about Alsager
leading digital provision rather than lagging behind as at present? The stated objective is just too
bland!!
The drainage system in Alsager is already a nightmare and cannot be sustained with a such a large
proposal for extra housing, etc.
Existing road network will not cope with further development you can't plan out the pinch points in
a village.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Infrastructure
Page 23
A tall order. Each new house means two more cars.
What is meant by "new development"? This is not always needed nor necessary.
Suggested housing development too far from the railway station, except for Site E. Your plan makes
no assessment of impact of extra traffic.
It needs more medical surgeries.
Road infrastructures will need vast improvement throughout the town to accommodate any new
developments. High end broadband capacity must be a top priority if "home working" is an option.
Strongly agree that infrastructure needs immediate attention, the roads throughout the village are
like a 3rd world Country. It makes the place look like a Ghetto.
Very important. Public utility infrastructure is often overloaded now. Plus 1,000 homes will be
worse.
This should be paramount for the Council. The poor existing infrastructure needs to be improved
before any consideration is given to compounding existing problems through additional residential
development, especially on greenfield or Green Belt sites.
Where reasonable and viable in terms of new development and in pursuance of the Community
Infrastructure Levy.
Use and improve the main arteries. Avoid bypassing the centre as passing trade is a vital part of
village/ town sustainability. Keep lanes off the main arteries as lanes, to maintain the character and
speed control.
The infrastructure & services are currently only available to a select minority.
How can services be maintained and up to 1,000 new homes be serviced if the threat of the closure
of the local tip is carried out? Similarly, the removal of council services to Sandbach. Alsager cannot
sustain the building of so much new housing without proper provision of shops and services.
Presumably new sewerage facilities are proposed.
The infrastructure referred to is social infrastructure. The town’s infrastructure is typified by roads
which have a patch work of repairs, pavements with tarmac which have been continually dug up and
repaired. The sewerage system which cannot cope.....Wood Park where residents have had to
continually report raw sewage escaping into the local stream.
Essential that United Utilities improve the sewer capacity in Alsager.
This will require attention even if no expansion or housing development took place.
Yes I agree with meeting existing infrastructure. I do not have any trust that this will be delivered as
the pot holes in the roads are an obvious sign that our needs are not being met. Yet here we go
again... "to provide for requirements generated by new development, by investing in new and
improved infrastructure". If we do not have new development then we will not need to provide new
infrastructure. This is not an aim I agree with.
Who is providing the new facilities? - is this the council (for Water and Sewers) or other businesses:
shouldn’t the requirement of additional facilities be qualified as affordable?
Infrastructure needs high priority, especially waste water / sewerage, given that some areas of
Alsager still suffer from storm related flooding.
This is the most important factor influencing any plan for Alsager.
Page 24
Fill in the potholes would be a good start.
Yes to fixing the roads.
The pavements and roads are an absolute disgrace.
Obvious by the absence of a 'high street' character, and road conditions. Youth facilities.
Yes but a large amount of money will have to be spent to cope with future developments.
Our roads will not cope with all the extra cars.
Civic Centre should not be a burden on the tax payers.
Develop existing sites.
Use the brownfield sites not green!
Now reached breaking points.
Increased car parking close to school required. No more mini roundabouts.
This has to come before any development.
There is no reference in this document to our 'joint use' leisure centre which has a swimming pool
much valued by the disabled.
Page 25
5 Connectivity
Do you agree with the Connectivity Objective in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (83%); No (17%);
Comments
Ensure the train service is maintained and improved, with more emphasis on non car based travel.
We should be reducing the need for car travel, rather than travel in general.
One of the reasons why buses are so seldom used to Newcastle and Sandbach is because they are
few and far between and completely impractically timetabled for most practical purposes. It takes 3
buses (or 1.5 hours) to get to Newcastle most of the time. The yellow lines along Sandbach Road
South, south of the station, need to be re-thought to run all along one side or the other. Zigzagging
slows down traffic even more.
Not a proper sentence - I believe it should read "... cycling, and to help to reduce ..."
Utopian ideal re reduce the need to travel.
Meaning?
It takes a long time to travel from one end to the other.
First see overall comment re objectives in the any comments section at the end. . Connectivity is
very important. Given the fact of Alsager s size and geography, it is extremely important that
cohesion of the whole is enabled both physically and socially. People must be able to access the
different areas and services wherever they live. Further provision must be made for Alsager
residents to easily get to destinations beyond Alsager and for outsiders to be able to access Alsager.
Any sane individual would agree to safer and easier travel to and from work. Public transport cannot
cope with today's job requirements as it is not feasible in so many cases. Priority should be made in
areas for key services such as travel to the nearest big towns and cities.
DO NOT implement car parking fees to the village as this will have a major negative impact.
Nice idea outside your control.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Connectivity
Page 26
Agree strongly, walking should be encouraged.
More cycle routes from one place to another.
Need to ensure that rural residents can easily travel into the town for essential services such as
healthcare and food shopping
Car parking within the town to remain free of charge - charges would reduce the footfall within the
town and endanger local business.
The current situation appears to be considerably better than most other towns I visit and so I do not
feel that anything can be greatly improved
What! You mention improvements to transport and reducing the need to travel in the same
paragraph, who wrote this???
Convenient public transport has to actually be available before you can persuade people to use it. So
cuts in services negate this objective.
The proposals here seem reasonable and should take full account of 'green' strategies.
This is a national objective that is valid to follow at the more local level.
Not only cycleways, but also walkways and footpaths.
Reduce speed limits in outer areas of Alsager to 30mph and inner area reduce to 20mph to
encourage cycling and walking to village centre and schools In light of HS2 would we lose our rail
links?
No consideration of electronic connectivity/better broadband/TV etc.
No point connecting all to centre- needs to be wider than that and allowed to expand to connect to
the large supermarket. If there is no large supermarket most shopping will be done out of Alsager.
I believe that transport links are already pretty good in the town, with the possible exception of
Alsager to Stoke bus services. The train links are very good.
The cycle routes in Alsager not existent. The road surfaces are some of the worst in the area. All this
needs to addressed as a matter of urgency. The main road between Crewe and Alsager is not really
fit for cyclists. What about a cycle route next to the railway line into Crewe? Part of the route is
single line so this is a possibility. Changing the speed limit from 40 to 30 miles an hour on Sandbach
road north would be a good start. The entrance/exit from the Salt line is very dangerous.
The improvements in rail links and bus links depend on private enterprise agreeing with the
improvements and supplying the services. At the moment the bus service is being reduced!
The must be concerns about the ability of the current road network to adequately cope with
increase in traffic movements that will surely follow the adoption of a large house building program
in this town. And there must a consequence for public transport too.
We have a good train service. Please keep it going. 2.5 hours into London is most helpful and vital if
we are to keep our small businesses alive.
This sounds like 2 sentences turned into one: to reduce the need to travel sounds good (e.g. an
alternative supermarket within the bounds of the town) but needs a strategy that can deliver this!
I find the objective unclear. How will making it 'safer and easier . . . to travel' help to reduce the
need for travel?
Car parking provision on south side of Crewe Road highly inadequate. Use Town Yard - not sell off.
Page 27
Extend Station Road car park.
Is public transport sustainable?
The first no.20 is late, dirty and smells and often over crowded and very overpriced.
Not enough buses and the no.20 are disgusting and always overfilled so people are standing.
Safe pavements would be welcome.
A village cut in half by a high speed train line would kill Alsager as we know it.
At the moment the town is not the centre or origin of any public transport.
Bus and rail fairly well okay - but roads into village from A500 and M6 are inadequate.
Cars, cars, cars - one long traffic jam.
Please do not put down paving slabs that become slippy when wet.
What does this stupid word mean? Try filling all the potholes - may improve connectivity.
Free parking essential or some system whereby fee can be set against purchases. Parking at Tesco is
free.
'Connectivity' will never happen unless pedestrians feel safe on the roads - there is no evidence of
any effort to enforce residential speed. The Lawton Road / Crewe Road axis effectively divides
Alsager in half - it is impossible to cross safely.
Sainsbury's supports Objective 5, which states that the Council will seek to make it safer and easier
for the community to travel to jobs and key services by sustainable modes of transport to reduce
the need to travel. Mixed use developments, for example the proposals at the former Twyford site
(see below) present many benefits in achieving sustainable development by providing residential
uses alongside employment, retail and other services.
We support the 6 objectives set out, particularly the following - Objective 5: Connectivity. We
consider that residential development of the Fanny's Croft site off Audley Road will help to achieve
the vision and the objectives for Alsager.
Page 28
6 Village Character
Do you agree with the Village Character Objective in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (83%); No (17%);
Comments
All the shopping areas are too far apart therefore you don't use the full range if you are parked in
the civic car park - that’s why the shops at the wider end of the village can’t survive.
Vital to maintain green spaces easily accessible from the town centre.
I do not necessarily think we need a 'village feel', but I am not against it, especially if it means
maintaining green space.
This will be harmed by the proposed Sainsbury’s development on the Twyfords site - especially if its
main access is from Linley Lane rather than Crewe Road. That access direction will impede through
traffic on the A road, and cater to through traffic rather than to Alsager business. Access onto Crewe
Road could be by a roundabout at the (slightly reordered) junction of Twyfords and Moorhouse
Road, and maybe also of Edwards Way. The above would be an improvement, but it is difficult to
see the benefit to Alsager of having both Sainsbury's and the Co-op extension. If you give the goahead to Sainsbury's, please can we have a petrol station? Tesco in Kidsgrove costs 5p/litre more
than in the Potteries because there's no competition.
I do not believe that Alsager currently has a village character.
Difficult to see how a 'village feel' will be maintained with a planned 1,000 extra homes.
Whilst maintaining a 'village feel' is OK in theory & some aspects are desirable, the reality is that
Alsager has a town population. It feels like a village because nobody stays in it -they go elsewhere to
shop, work & for many leisure facilities. We need the services of a town not a village. The only way
to keep a village feel in the centre with the population of a town is to provide facilities such as a
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Village Character
Page 29
major supermarket (or two) around the periphery.
Sustaining this with significant population growth and external changes difficult.
Loss of trees around Coop area - not good in any way. The trees were part of Alsager's character.
The feel is awkward at the moment.
Should be preserved, indeed resuscitated.
You can't do this by building more houses on the green spaces and increasing the population. We
are a town and will fail to keep that 'village' character if the population increases any further.
Village Character: Yes. Development: No. Alsager already has easy access to the open countryside
this does need to be conserved. I do not believe that then proposed development plans are
‘enhancing’ of the ‘green spaces’. I have no issues with on-going red-brick development, but no
further greenfield development should not be considered.
This objective, though laudable, seems rather confused and difficult to measure. Perhaps it is an
orthogonal objective, something by which to assess the other objectives? The sub-elements
concerning an 'enhanced network of green spaces' and 'easy access to open countryside' are good.
The second of these is a 'connectivity' objective of course.
This is an area where all claims regarding the network of green spaces are enhanced is futile when
you are proposing the build of 1,000 homes on some areas which are used for a lot of social and
leisure activities. One example of this is the Alsager Football Club who have recently signed a new 21
year lease and any build on this site would also impact on many rights of public access.
We have now reached the point when we could lose this completely.
Will not be achieved with the present planning regime.
We must retain the village feel or people will drift to Stoke - Newcastle etc.
Maintain the green areas of the village where thay are already flanked by housing developments
(Football ground, Cricket ground, Cedar Avenue fields). These are vital breathing spaces for all.
You can't keep a 'village feel' for Alsager if you add 1,000 more houses.
Not too much as it will be cramped.
We have a town with a village feel which we need to maintain. Modern society changes have all but
removed the old village feel of the last couple of generations where people looked out for each
other and were actively engaged in managing the needs of every member of the community. We
need to get this attitude back and the plan should incorporate the facility to do that.
Although too much "sprawl" will negate this village feel.
Improve public access to the Alsager Mere. The Mere is a wasted asset for the town, access is very
limited.
I would be in agreement with your aims if you were not recommending in the same document that
we do away with playing fields and football pitches along with various other greenfield sites and
then in there place you are recommending that there be built further homes whose new residents
will not be able to enjoy the open space and facilities that already exist
I think anything that enhances the village feel is good; there is no need for Alsager to try to become
a soulless town. It doesn't need a town centre; it needs to continue to be a village, with community.
Maintain at all costs, a reason why so many people have chosen to live here.
Page 30
The objectives are fine but I doubt whether the younger / newer residents recognise any 'village
feel' it is a town now.
It may attract people to visit Alsager and shop here if the character were to be enhanced.
This is a prime asset for Alsager and needs to be retained and, where necessary, improved.
Not just the Potteries - '...... between Alsager and all neighbouring towns'.
I strongly agree that all development needs to respect the local village character of Alsager. All
green gap land should be protected at all costs.
In light of HS2 how would Alsager be affected?
Access to countryside should be maintained by only allowing building on existing brownfield sites.
Farmland and open countryside should not be built on.
The Village feel is key to the centre and surrounding elements of Alsager. With good sized pockets of
green space at Milton, MMU site, Wood park, for family and community creative use.
Too vague.
Green spaces are very important to me.
Alsager needs to wake up to the fact it IS a small town size 12000+ already. It is going to grow more
than this with new housing, so its retail, leisure and other facilities need to reflect the population
size not live harking backwards all the time.
The lines of empty units speak for themselves- it is not thriving because there is a massive leak of
money out of the town. A large supermarket, petrol station, stationary shop and affordable clothing
shops would go some way towards a better future for Alsager. It needs to become a drawing centre
form surrounding proper sized villages.
I am surprised that established green spaces that would seem perfect to maintain the village feel of
the area and easily achieve this objective, have some of the proposed housing sites suggested on
them. Surely by building on already green space, and having to create new green space in other
areas is doubling the cost and effort in trying to achieve this objective.
The countryside must be preserved. This it what attracts people to visit and live in Cheshire. I used
to live in Sussex and the countryside of Cheshire is one of the features that brought me here.
Alsager is a small town NOT a village.
I fail to see how the building of 1,000 homes by 2030 will maintain the "village" feel of Alsager.
It is interesting to note that while this part of the document talks about enhancing the green spaces
in other sections it indicates that existing green spaces are used for residential development. Not
very consistent and calls in to question the integrity of the consultation process.
Definitely a must for Alsager!
This again asks the question, how big does Alsager have to become before it loses its 'village' feel.
More larger executive housing needed in small developments, these are the houses that sell.
The issue here is that this theme goes against the building of more houses on these very locations.
Surely, all previous points lead towards safeguarding the very particular character of Alsager.
Sustainable community? This really is a challenge.
Yes to maintaining village feel and character of Alsager. But I have no confidence that this will
happen especially as the new Co-op building has mercilessly destroyed the beautiful trees which
give Alsager its character. To conserve and enhance the village feel of Alsager is to do our very best
Page 31
to preserve ancient trees, plant more trees and not build on open spaces and Green Belt land. The
new medical centre is another example of how the village feel of the place has been destroyed.
Trees cut down and a high rise in place of a bungalow. The surrounding hills used to be in our sight.
These hinted to the fact that we were close to the countryside. Now blotted out by street lights and
concrete to high heaven! Please note that to conserve what we have is to not build more higher
towards the sky or on green open space land and to enhance what we have is to plant more trees
and improve what we have by maintaining it.
Is this possible with the envisaged increase in housing - if all house sites were used the % increase
could change the whole village feel.
Our community is separated from surrounding communities by green spaces; these must be
retained to keep the 'village feel'. Main roads do not fit the bill.
Improve dangerous access to Salt Line at Cherry Lane.
It’s a small town now so how can it be a village if you want to build more houses.
Conserve and enhance the 'village feel' - don't make it vibrant!
This is very important. Alsager is a village NOT a town!
Village character will be lost if more industry / retail is brought in.
Gone many plans ago, Alsager is a town with village services.
Alsager has a distinctive charm, but we have more than enough take-aways, hairdressers and charity
shops.
Yes but need to get rid of some charity shop, take-aways that do same sort of food and hairdressers
as there are far too many.
Yes but difficult to retain balance with expansion planned.
Not compatible with these huge development proposals.
Why are sites of easy access to the countryside on a development list?
Prevent the loss of Alsager’s identifiable character by the slow merging with other built up areas.
Protect the Green Belt.
Can't be both village and town.
Alsager ceased to be a village many years ago - it is now a small town and always will be.
You can not have a 'village feel' if you build all over the sport fields and greenfield sites.
Greenspaces are for people not for housing.
What little character that’s left will be lost to over development.
How can you call it a village character if you keep building?
Never accepted Alsager as a village.
Lost and now just a dream, it makes sick listening to local Councillors.
Feel that the housing proposal is at odds with this objective.
What are you planning folk dancing?
Trees! - cut down and not replaced!
Page 32
Q3 Strategy
Do you agree or disagree with the Strategy as set out in the draft AlsagerTown Strategy?
•
81% of respondents answered Theme 1 (Housing), 79% Theme 2 (Town Centre), 80% Theme
3 (Balanced Economy),80% Theme 4 (Sustainable Communities), 78% Theme 5 (Access
Connectivity),81% Theme 6 (Village Character), 78% Theme 7 (Infrastructure and Services)
and 76% answered Theme 8 (Deliverability and Viability)
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Strategy
Page 33
1 Housing
Do you agree with the Housing Theme in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (47%); No (53%)
Comments
The key being "appropriate sites" for housing developments and ensuring the infrastructure is in
place to support these. There is plenty of provision for the older generation in Alsager - more needs
to be done the young families and affordable houses.
Building must be on brownfield sites, ensuring that Alsager doesn't merge into the neighbouring
villages. Green space should be more than just green corridors.
I do not understand why we have to plan to build an additional 1,000 houses in Alsager by 2030.
There are two OBVIOUS locations for any "needed" house building, most appropriately on
previously developed land including the reuse of land at the former Manchester Metropolitan
University Campus and Twyford’s. It is wrong to look at areas like Wood Park and the current
Alsager Town football ground as this provides the local community with much needed open space
and green area within an already highly populated area.
I do not think we need 1,000 new homes. That implies 4,000 new residents which I do not feel
Alsager can cater for. I do agree that some new housing is in order. I would suggest more like 500.
Should include suitable provision for single persons
Pleased to see 'specialist support requirements' included. Hope this includes people with learning
needs. New housing and leisure all in one part of Alsager - overload re space / population density.
As long as infrastructure / services can support any increase in population.
Some of it.
More housing for people.
Too much development proposed.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Housing
Page 34
Housing only on brownbelt sites.
No more housing, unless it's upgrading existing housing. No building on greenfield sites. How do you
expect people to find jobs in the local area if all that's done is to build houses and increase the
population?
Alsager is large enough; it does not need further housing development.
First see overall comments re 'strategy' in the any comments section at the end. . (this theme relates
to objective 1 and maybe objective 6). . Presumably the stated 1,000 new homes is dictated from
some external agency. It has no support from either the vision or the objectives.
No requirement for 1,000 houses whatsoever. Utilising existing run down areas such as the MMU
and Twyford’s can only improve the outlook but certainly not areas of existing greenfield with so
much natural wildlife such as Wood Park.
As long as it is in keeping with the character of the village and does not encroach on existing
properties i.e. MMU Cottages.
We do not need 1,000 new houses we have many empty houses and now many residents who can't
sell, people are not placing property on the market because of such low prices. What would more
house building do to existing residents?
BUT existing greenspaces and leisure must be preserved.
We cannot retain the village feel by this amount of building.
I do not understand why a small village which stands in the middle of Stoke on Trent and Crewe
should be looking to "deliver an additional 1,000 homes" in the next 18 years. If houses have to be
built, then the priority must go to existing brownfield sites such as Twyford’s, MMU and Cardway
Cartons.
Alsager is simply not big enough to have anywhere near the no. of new houses listed.
No. Too many houses on greenfield sites. There is enough brownfield land available for all Alsager's
housing needs.
No more housing is necessary.
Some.
Cannot see how you arrive at 1,000 homes required by 2030.
Existing brownfield sites plus land released by transfer of sports pitches would meet need without
using greenfield land.
Too cramped.
I am not in favour of more housing unless the plans include an infrastructure that will cope with the
additional pressures added to the existing community. My preference would be to have smaller
(under 100 houses) developments that will be better integrate into the town.
Does the total of 1,000 include any "garden grabbing" developments?
Alsager is a relatively expensive area for housing - more low cost starter homes are required for
young couples and single people to allow them to stay and live in the town.
I do not see the need for 1,000 more houses within Alsager and would like to know where the figure
has been plucked from I also worry that the village feel that is being punted throughout this
document will be lost when Alsager no longer feels like a Village and more like the numerous
faceless towns we see throughout this area. I say this as I myself am new to the village and chose to
Page 35
moved here because of how it is now and not what you wish it to be in twenty years
I agree in principle to this but ONLY where housing development is limited to existing brownfield
sites.
Yes in principal with areas of concern that I will go into later.
I object strongly to building 1,000 new homes in Alsager. This equates to an extra 2,200 residents
and runs counter to objective 6 - Village Character.
The removal of Alsager Football ground and the adjacent Wood Park is a ridiculous plan. The park is
used actively and frequently by residents of Radway Green Estate, and it gives easy access to the
Salt Line. There are probably hundreds of dog walkers who use the park and surrounding public
land. Surely the developments at Twyford’s and the MMU will provide enough housing for Alsager.
Perhaps those developments should include social housing for Alsager's "less well off".
More housing means more facilities. I don’t think that the existing infrastructure is capable of
supporting what we have now.
Need to consider new Government policy.
Some is ok, definitely on MMU campus, good space unused and going into decline, traffic here
should be ok as it was used to the old university and 100's of cares using it.
But environmental issues should be mandatory on all new build i.e. fully insulated roof and walls
latest technology double glazing etc.
Current residents have to put up with unrepaired roads for years but there is a lack of credibility in
the Plan regarding the infrastructure necessary to support additional housing. The Plan provokes the
view that its purpose is to sell off significant tracts of land, including greenfield sites, to Developers
for residential housing and to surround this objective with unpersuasive verbiage. We will be largely
unaffected directly by the implementation of these proposals except insofar as they lead to a
deterioration in the experience of all Alsager residents, but the former MMU site is particularly
unsuitable for residential development owing to its location in the town and the poor access and
traffic problems that would result from such development.
Subject to the genuine availability of the stated sites and that they are not required for employment
purposes. The housing numbers will need to be reviewed in the light of the Cheshire East Core
Strategy decisions on distribution of development and the quantum of housing development
required to meet need and demand for housing. The lack of progress on the allocated sites in the
Local Plan has meant that very little housing development has taken place in Alsager over the past 5
years or so to the detriment of provision of affordable housing and disposable income from new
residents to support local facilities.
Any further housing will destroy the community feel of Alsager. I live near Alsager FC and there are
already problems of drainage because the sewers cannot cope with the volume of waste. We have
seen sanitary waste in the brook at the bottom of the field. Parking and congestion is already a
problem, particularly when there is a home match and in the nearby streets where householders
with more than one car are forced to park in the street. Also the state of the roads is already poor.
Money needs to be spent on repairing and replacing the existing road surfaces locally.
I do not support the development of any kind on Green Belt land when there is already sufficient
land identified as brownfield, greenfield and agricultural. Traffic flow along Audley Road to access
the A500 would need to be an integral part of this plan.
Page 36
But are the proposed housing development on land opposite Cranberry Lane / Crewe Road included
within this overall strategy (65 house being proposed on open green fields) ( if this is an alternative
development area H and part of 150 new homes? and why have plans already been drawn up by
HSL Hollins Strategic Land before consultation period completed?
Only enough housing should be allowed within the confines of the current village boundaries. No
development on greenfield sites.
The MMU site should be focused as educational & leisure along with opening up some the space to
general public green space to balance this area of Alsager. The opportunity to improve the six form
capability and facility will enhance the growing families and support local education opportunities
for 16+ years.
Too many news houses. I doubt we really need more than 500. There are plenty on the market.
I don’t agree with the housing proposals for Site J as this is using what is currently green fields.
There should be no building allowed on Green Belt sites.
Only if facilities- school provision and supermarket and retail facility expand to match increase.
Why do we need 1,000 houses? Is this a government target? Surely if we want to maintain a village
feeling in the area, we've got to stop building and expanding it into the size of a town. But if houses
are needed, then places like MMU Campus and Twyford’s seem like the best place to put them,
without the big shops or other large facilities, but smaller "village like" amenities for residents. Also,
how are already oversubscribed schools going to cope with the influx of all the children from these
new houses, as there doesn't seem to be a mention of additional schooling facilities in the proposed
plan?
I agree with the idea of redeveloping on sites such as the MMU and Twyfords. I believe that
developing housing on Green Belt land/fields and parks is a bad idea.
Approximately 20% increase in population in less than 20 years is too great a rate of growth. Present
population 12,460 and to me 1,000 new homes implies at least another 2,000 occupants, plus an
extra 1,500 cars.
There should be no building on any Green Belt or existing sporting areas.
The provision of 1,000 new homes will need to be balanced with the amount of land available and
the other needs of the Strategy, otherwise the Vision for Alsager will not be met.
Only use brownfield sites for new housing.
But do we really need 1,000 new homes? Where will these people come from and where will they
work?
I am not sure that Alsager requires any more housing. If need be, only build on brownfield sites only.
Leave existing playing fields ALONE !!!!!!
To make this work all new housing requests must be part of this plan. I understand that there are
plans to build next to Poppyfields. These must be viewed within this overall plan. Also this plan must
be kept to and not rewritten within a few years.
Very few new houses needed in Alsager, just larger more executive houses.
Looking at the housing market at the moment there would appear to be a surplus of housing in all
price bands, therefore to increase the housing stock does not seem to make economic sense.
Has the housing need been confirmed?
Housing numbers to be delivered needs to address the evidence base with regard to market and
Page 37
affordable housing need.
Protect greenfield sites which have a vital role to play in health and well-being agenda. Encourage
development on brown-field sites.
I disagree strongly with the proposals for Area C. This open green area should remain. It is well used
by the community and the Football Club. Development will cause tremendous disruption to the
surround estate's road network leading to noise, congestion and pollution. Some of the roads would
need significant changes to their layout or parking. It would be very detrimental.
But not to the extent of 1,000 houses
Why 1,000 new homes? This is government European Union garbage which has produced
devastating effects in Spain. Do we really want this here? No. There are plenty of houses for sale
already. Any new housing development is contrary to the vision of having a village feel to Alsager.
There is no discussion whether 1,000 houses is viable within the other objectives: maybe this should
read to seek an appropriate number of houses that retains the character of the town: that enables
people to work locally.
The amount of housing proposed is excessive, but it will be curtailed by market forces.
With appropriate sites and quantity i.e. no surplus.
Not on present sporting areas e.g. Wood Park and Cedar Avenue.
New housing provision excessive.
We don't need any.
1,000 houses will lead to a population increase of 4,000 people?
MMU Site only.
Not sure - depends where!
Do not agree with major development in Dunnocksfold / Hassall Road.
Don't build on every green space available for local children. Disgusting.
Do not agree with building on our greenspace. It's nice to go for a walk or take children. It would
ruin Alsager.
Query need for 1,000 new homes.
Too many houses. Potentially 4,000 additional residents. Agree with elderly care provisions.
Twyfords Housing will impact on traffic accident black spot on / at Linley Lane.
If this development happens as envisaged it will be more than Alsager can manager without spoiling
its character.
But not to use existing playing fields.
Alsager is already mostly housing estates. Why 1,000 new houses? Too many empty houses already
available.
There is no proven need for 1,000 houses - certainly not for greenfield use.
Alsager seems to be getting a larger proportion of housing 'dumped' on it as our control centre
moves further away from Alsager. Do we end up a ‘dump’?
There seems no mechanism to establish a balance of different housing needs.
Too many houses to be built on Green Belt and greenfield sites - and football and play areas.
Page 38
With limited housing.
We cannot sell the houses already on the market some up for sale for four years.
Demand for 1,000 houses?
Should not be built on greenspaces / football pitches.
Not in all the areas suggested.
To maintain the character of the village, the housing growth should be a lot lower.
1,000 houses seems a bit ambitious.
Alternative Areas I and H are better preferred areas to J.
I do not think we need 1,000 new homes.
We do not need more housing Alsager has outgrown itself.
I do not think Alsager needs as many as 1,000 new homes.
Too much proposed. Will lose its friendly village feel.
Do not see the need for additional housing given the age structure of Alsager existing population.
Special need for i.e. improvement in drainage systems - before any additional housing commences.
Development of greenspaces is worrying and upsetting.
Where is the demand? Affordable housing - yes.
I object to any housing on previous MMU site. Dunnocksfold Road is already a nightmare for
pedestrian safety.
The draft strategy has identified a need for 1,000 new dwellings over the plan period to 2030. The
strategy provides no clear justification for this figure, how it has been reached and from what
evidence base. Furthermore it is unclear whether the overall aims and objectives can be realised
with the level of housing growth proposed. It is worth noting that the Place Shaping Exercise
identified a housing requirement of between 600 and 1,700 new dwellings, therefore further
explanation needs to be provided to justify the overall provision of housing and how this figure has
been derived. The Town Strategy is premature of the Core Strategy. In terms of delivery, given that
there are currently no significant active residential sites in Alsager it is unclear how the figure of
1,000 new dwellings will be achieved given that this would equate to completing c55 dwellings per
year from this point forward to meet the target. Given current market conditions this would require
at least 3 sites being developed concurrently. There are currently no substantial sites with the
benefit of a valid planning consent and in the control of a developer, and it will be some time before
the target of 55 residential dwellings per year can be achieved. Greater attention should therefore
be given to identifying sites that could contribute towards early delivery without having any reliance
on sites within the Green Belt.
Question the prescribed level of housing for Congleton and Alsager, growth figures of 3,500 and
1,000 new homes is significant and will have a major impact on the on-going regeneration of the
North Staffordshire Conurbation. The importance of which was recognised through both Regional
Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands and the North West. The City Council made continuing
comments to this effect into the consultation process for the RS2010 document. The below
statement is taken from paragraph 7.17 of the RSS. ‘Within Macclesfield and Congleton, this
development should take place within the context of the economic and social linkages with both the
rest of the Manchester City Region and also the Potteries and the North Staffordshire Housing
Market Renewal Pathfinder’.
Page 39
Whilst the HMR programme has now ended the on-going regeneration of Stoke-On-Trent and the
wider North Staffordshire conurbation continues, and the targeted regeneration of the City is the
core principle of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy for Newcastle and Stoke-On-Trent adopted in
October 2009. The delivery of this regeneration strategy is based on the principle that surrounding
housing markets will follow the approaches set out in regional spatial strategy for the West
Midlands and North West and give careful consideration to the levels of housing growth on the
periphery of the North Staffordshire conurbation in order to further the regeneration of North
Staffordshire and encourage the sustainable use of brownfield land.
Furthermore whilst the Alsager strategy makes reference to the links between the town and the
North Staffordshire conurbation, no such reference is made for Congleton. The Core Strategy Issues
and Options acknowledges significant in and out migration between South Cheshire and North
Staffordshire, for which Congleton must play a significant part. The connection therefore should be
recognised in the town strategy.
We support the need to deliver at least 1,000 new dwellings in the town to 2030 but suggest, as
stated in our general comments that this figure should properly be determined through the Core
Strategy and should reflect the housing need identified in the SHMA.
The Draft Strategy seeks to deliver in the order of 1,000 new homes by 2030. The Core Strategy
Issues and Options Report identified a range of between 690 and 1,600 homes that need to be
provided within Alsager by 2030. The figure of 1,000 therefore is at the lower end of this scale and
does not reflect the high growth option for the town, or the higher growth options postulated by
the Core Strategy for the district as a whole as discussed with the Housing Market Partnership.
1,000 new homes over an 18-year period to 2030 equates to only 55 dwellings per annum. The
Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) identifies a need for 36 affordable homes to be
provided each year within Alsager. That figure would be impossible to achieve if the total dwelling
provision is only 55 per annum.
In our submission to the Issues and Options at Q4b we suggested that for the District as a whole a
figure of 2,500 new dwellings per annum should replace 1600 dwellings shown in the Table at para.
6.2 of the Core Strategy. This represents a 56.25% increase in the dwelling provision and if we
applied that percentage to the upper end of the range of new homes indicated in the Draft Alsager
Town Strategy, namely 1,600 homes, then that would, and should rise to 2,500 new dwellings over
the 18-year period, equating to about 130 new dwellings per annum which, in our view is a target to
be aimed at if Alsager town is to meets its vision of an appropriate level and mix of new housing that
the town needs.
What about all the Council houses - 3 bedrooms with 1 occupant. There are at least 2 on my street.
Bet it is the same on others.
Page 40
2 Town Centre
Do you agree with the Town Centre Theme in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (82%); No (18%)
Comments
Except = Allow for a more diverse range of shops. There are many empty shops in Alsager especially along Crewe Road. These need to be filled before new shop spaces are built. The town
needs to be evened out - Lawton road is seen more as the town centre and so the town centre
needs to be linked to ensure all businesses benefit from improvement in the town centre.
Inadequate shopping facilities.
More diversification is vital, not just more cafes and charity shops.
Develop evening economy here.
The creation of "shared street surfaces" on the main road through the town would not, in my
opinion, be acceptable. A great deal could usefully be done to enhance the streetscape without
experimenting with the merger of traffic and pedestrians.
Mostly.
This is desperately short-sighted. Only maybe 10% of residents use the town centre at present.
Instead of trying to retain the 10%, what are the plans to bring back the 90%??! A slightly enlarged
Co-op is not enough because it will not be big enough to do a family weekly shopping trip. Either a
major supermarket is needed in the town (not village) centre OR a major supermarket on the
periphery. Otherwise people will continue to go to Wolstanton, Crewe, Kidsgrove etc.
Community Information Centre should be re-opened.
Agree fully with Theme2. Believe this has little chance of coming to fruition due to planning consent
given for the expansion of the Co-Op store.
Page 41
'Focussing retail development on the town centre' obviously does not preclude retail development
elsewhere. Non-town centre areas will need some retail development to be viable given the size and
geographic spread of Alsager. The trick is to get the balance right. Perhaps a strategy to engender
physical interest in the town centre would be good. The area around Bank Corner is just a cross
roads which is very boring. Creating 'hidden' areas with 'surprise and interesting vistas' might be a
good point. Laudable though it is I am not sure of the practicality of shared surfaces in the town
centre. How about a better link to the railway station and medical centre. Some out of the box
thinking maybe? The current town centre is split into two main parts the shops to the west along
Crewe Road and the area around Bank Corner/Lawton Road. There should be a strategic aim to
integrate the two.
A lot of this looks good until the line 'improve community facilities and spaces’. There will be less
space if all these build projects go-ahead.
Reduce and enforce speed limit. Eliminate footpath parking.
Totally agree.
Bring in more people - less take-aways.
Too focused on protecting existing poor range of shop. Not enough emphasis on attracting new
retail outlets (not take-aways).
More shops e.g. car shops.
Retail development to be concentrated in the town centre - adequate parking spaces already exist
on the main car park.
I am in agreement with you proposals to support local shops and maintain the village atmosphere
but on another note your consideration of plans to allow Sainsbury's to build a supermarket on the
old Twyfords site will surely go against all of the aims you have for the village and as this has been
the proven elsewhere to have a dramatic effect on local shops I find it difficult to take what is being
said in this proposal as serious.
Don't know what 'shared street surfaces' means or implies.
'A more diverse range of shops'.
Some improvements to the Town Centre would be beneficial.
There may be a case for provision of some local convenience facilities on a small scale in any larger
development schemes that may be permitted. However, the scale should not adversely affect the
town centre.
A lively, reliable, well-maintained and soundly-promoted gathering of stallholders should be a
weekly cornerstone of Alsager's claim to be a 'Cheshire market town'. Although it has no great
history as one, the town has for well over a decade now hosted a market that has the potential both
to maintain and increase its size and popularity. Many other towns in the county have indoor
markets - many dating back for centuries. Whilst Alsager has no such, the creation of such a venture
is not without support in the town.
The actual town centre does need improving. The Bank Corner has proved a popular addition to the
High Street and encouraged people into the town centre. We could do with some more coffee/milk
bar type shops, where teenagers can go for an evening out and perhaps have a dance. Considering
we have a large Secondary School, Alsager does not have Youth club s or amenities that cater for the
11-18 age range. A regular film club would also be advantageous.
Page 42
Why is the Sainsbury supermarket application being considered at Twyfords area B if the strategy is
to focus retail development in the town centre? Also area B only lists a small scale local retail
development in region of 200-300sqm which is far smaller than the proposed Sainsbury retail
development.
Currently, the main road through Alsager is very busy and in order to allow "shared" street surfaces
this would have to be reduced significantly. Diverting the road would be necessary to provide a
more village feel to the town centre - integrated through Milton Park to the other Alsager Town
Centre along Crewe Road.
Shared surface should not encourage the centre to be bypassed, as passing trade is vital for small
independent, diverse business and shops. Alsager should encourage visitors not deter.
Very vague. What does "shared street surfaces" mean?! Crazy language.
The Co-Op is the worst retail organisation in the area in terms of SERVICE, Quality & Choice. To give
them the main retail focus will continue to stop people from visiting Alsager to shop as it has for the
last 20 years.
Growth and development of retail should not all be focussed on town centre. in order to thrive
there needs to be other development in non town centre areas- large supermarket, petrol station,
stationary shop and affordable clothing shops.
But the retail offerings must be more competitive and not afraid of edge of town development. The
high prices charged by the town's principal supermarket, the Co-op, drives townsfolk to shop in
Kidsgrove, Crewe, Wolstanton or Sandbach. What are "shared street surfaces" that the strategy
wishes to create? Bikes, cars, motor bikes, horse-riders and pedestrians all sharing the same space?
Don't forget the pony & trap that enhance the 'village feel'.
Much more emphasis needs to be placed on the provision of independent retailers, who must be
encouraged to open in Alsager.
What is 'shared street surfaces'? Does this mean integrating road vehicles with the pedestrians i.e.
removing the pavement kerbs and having a combined road and pavement or does it mean
something else? If this is the proposal then it will be necessary to review and develop a new road
system (East/West) to cater for current and future road traffic loading.
What is a 'shared surface'? Please avoid jargon.
This should include sufficient free car parking to encourage people to come into the middle of
Alasager and not drive to alternative towns.
Recommend that bullet point 1 be strengthened to provide a protection role for the town centre
and to reflect our comments in respect of Objective 2 of the Plan i.e. define the extent of the Town
centre boundary and primary/secondary shopping areas and resist proposals for large scale retail
development outside the Town Centre boundary.
I would also comment that it is not entirely clear where more specific development management
policies relating to the consideration of new retail development in Alsager will sit i.e. will it be at
Core Strategy level, a Development Management Policies DPD or at the Town Strategy level? In the
case of the latter, again I would recommend that more specific development management policies
be included here e.g. establishing a local threshold for requiring retail impact assessments on retail
schemes over a certain size (NPPF recommends a default of 2,500sq.m however given the make up
of the current town centre there could be justification for a much lower threshold to be set here to
ensure that all new retail developments which have the potential to impact on the future of the
town centre are given due consideration e.g. schemes above 1,000 sq.m gross), setting out
requirements for sequential assessment etc.
Page 43
consider to be appropriate for development in Alsager. Any retail development in Alsager should be
of a level which meets local needs and does not result in the retail offer in Alsager being in direct
completion with the retail offer in Crewe town centre.
This is vital for our future. Shops must be in town centre as many people rely on this facility
especially the elderly and those who do not drive. They need to be able to walk to their shops.
Sheltered accommodation in this town is very close to our retail centre.
The town must retain a sensible balance of different retail outlets.
It all sounds good but you have already allowed a large supermarket chain to build upon open
spaces within the centre of the town thereby contradicting what you have set out to do. The vision
also sets out to create a distinctive character to the town. There is nothing distinctive about Co-op.
It is found almost everywhere and one Co-op looks just like the other. The food is the same too.
Why focus retail development in the town centre only? There is talk of retail on the MMU site: If you
want to reduce travel (do you mean cars without saying so?). Shouldn’t more local shops be
developed? If you want folk to travel less - and most find the single large supermarket does not
meet all there needs (and the Co-op comes badly out of the WHICH surveys) surely you need to
encourage competition: so maybe not all in the village centre. There is no Petrol outlet in the town so a new supermarket on the Twyfords site would add to town facilities - and cut travel.
The new houses will maintain the businesses in the town centre. Opening up the Mere and park
areas etc is very necessary.
No to Sainsbury’s? Please explain 'shared street surfaces' and 'street sign clutter'.
But don't allow Sainsbury’s to build out of town which would destroy the centre.
Need to consider pedestrianisation of shopping area and diversion of through traffic away from
Crewe Road / Lawton Road.
If it goes too cosmopolitan we lose the unique feel it has.
Local, small shops only. No large retail.
Possibly.
All for more investment in the town centre.
Yes to improving the village.
This is part of our town which requires immediate attention now. Is there the danger of developing
two town centres. Remember Twyfords is not in the hub of the town?
Identify the Donkey path (Fairview Ave to Green Drive) for priority improvement.
Open spaces to be kept.
Unrealistic and over ambitious.
There are too many 'sandwich' type boards on the pavements.
Alsager central roads in the centre of the 'village' are a disgrace, by far the worst of any of the
surrounding towns.
Very limited diversity possible because of Sainsbury’s.
But too many old shops that look old - and how do you increase visibility of the Mere.
Shops are closing and there is not enough diversity.
Gone - twenty years out of date.
Page 44
The secret areas like Milton Gardens (much improved) help with the character also it does not want
exposing to the main road. Request for street surfaces to be usable by people with walking aids.
Also many dropped curbs still not low enough for mobility scooter.
There are too many empty shops try to fill these.
The Alsager Town Strategy comments that the Council will seek to focus retail development within
the town centre. This approach is in line with the sequential approach to site selection set out in
national policy guidance (NPPF paragraph 24).
Importantly, whilst the preference is for employment-generating uses to be in centres, alternative
(non-centre) locations can also be acceptable subject to meeting certain criteria. Sainsbury's
consider that policies should acknowledge that new retail development, within town centres, may
not always be achievable. Further, convenience and local level retail developments may be more
appropriately located in sites outside of centres, closer to the communities they serve. This
recommendation is considered to be in line with national guidance which requires policies in the
Local Plans to take a positive and flexible approach to sustainable development that delivers
economic growth.
My client is generally supportive of Theme 2 and highlights the benefits associated with the early
delivery of their site at Heath End Road / Sandbach Road North for a residential use and the benefits
this would have in meeting the aims and objectives in supporting the role of the town centre which
would include additional income generated by new households.
Page 45
3 A Balanced Local Economy
Do you agree with the Balanced Local Economy Theme in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (89%); No (11%)
Comments
"Improve the provision and quality of community facilities such as the Civic Centre and the Library" what are the benefits to the "other" side of Alsager town centre.
Definitely more links with schools, also need to improve access to ICT and broadband for home
working.
This theme is excellent.
The promotion of "more home working" pre-supposes excellent, fast broad-band access that is not
currently present, and not addressed by this document.
Difficult in practice to control factors affecting local employment.
I currently work from Home about 80% of the time. Alsager suffers from slow internet connectively
having no cable network and a single central exchange. Despite using ADSL2+ the attenuation of
39db reduces my connection speed to less than 8Mbps, and congested uplinks reduce the effective
speed further. The communication capability has to be improved before home working becomes
feasible throughout the town.
This theme is very dependent on the business/economic objectives.
I think a lot of this can be done utilising existing empty units in and around the town.
Would like further information regarding 'provision of incubator units'.
Alsager's USP is as a residential community.
We have a well educated community but only low paid jobs.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Local Economy
Page 46
Car shops.
Broadband connectivity to be a key development.
Space for some alternative light industrial / storage facilities to be maintained on Twyfords site.
So long as this actually does genuinely provide opportunities with business being given generous
incentives to succeed.
How is promoting home working achieved by the Council?
I don't know whether you can safeguard BAE Systems. They will do whatever suits them best.
Again, to say 'no' to such an aspiration would be silly but the proposals in the document do not
seem very concrete or convincing.
Encouragement should be given to a range of employment opportunities across the town.
Support and promote too the economic well-being of the town's rural hinterland - farming, riding
centres, plant nurseries etc.
Provision of leisure facilities at a reasonable rate and which are not elitist will draw people into the
town centre, providing employment opportunities and income, with the added advantage of
reducing problems with vandalism and underage drinking.
For home working need high quality internet access
Cable broadband would be a massive enhancement to the community to allow rapid
communication, video links to other businesses etc.
Good plan.
There is a need to identify additional land for a wide range of employment development, possibly as
part of mixed use urban extension.
Emphasis should be on small businesses.
Yes, but I remain very concerned that planning decisions likely to taken in the near future might
make this objective unobtainable.
Provide faster broadband. Internet wi-fi access.
BUT some of this is about getting students ready for work - locally or remotely (Schools working with
business).
Acoustic issues to be enforced in any economic development. Recent Excalibur development has not
acknowledged this.
Overall strategy well thought out and keeps the township compact.
We do not need any more take-aways or hairdressers.
With suitable infrastructure this is a balancing act with unlikely success possibilities.
Unlikely.
OK.
Include cooperative enterprises where possible.
Not possible many years ago after people worked in farming on the land.
Should superfast broadband be in there?
Reduction of take away food outlets and an increase other retail businesses.
Page 47
What do you mean? If it is financial - yes.
Some reference should be made to the general provision of employment land required to 2030.
My client’s site benefits from an employment use which has been established in the area for a
number of years. Additional development will result in greater spending in the Town Centre which
will contribute towards maintaining and improving the health of the Town Centre.
There is a concern from Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Newcastle Borough Council that the
proposed employment and mixed-use sites could be developed for business parks / large scale
offices which would be highly detrimental to the Stoke and Newcastle’s joint Core Spatial Strategy
approach as set out in policy SP2 Spatial Principles of Economic Development; this policy seeks to
focus office development within Stoke-on-Trent City Centre and Newcastle-under-Lyme Town
Centre.
This approach has been supported by the recently published National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF) which seeks to prioritise the development of office space in town centres. The Authorities
therefore consider that it would be appropriate for the employment sites to exclude large-scale B1a
office development, unless it could not be accommodated elsewhere, as this type of development
should be directed towards the town centres.
Page 48
4 Sustainable Communities
Do you agree with the Sustainable Communities Theme in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (81%); No (19%)
Comments
The open spaces already are usable and accessible, they need to be protected.
This theme is great too.
All these must be cost neutral to the general tax payer.
As well as creating new open spaces, existing ones should be enhanced.
Applaud using MMU leisure facilities but feel housing should be sited elsewhere.
Very positive and desirable strategy.
Important to prepare for future years.
The MMU site should not be used as a leisure centre. A leisure hub for private companies,
research, etc., would generate investment and employment in Alsager.
The first three points at least have a focus, but the fourth is totally meaningless without a plan to
achieve it.
Developments for sustainability should address the other aspects of the strategy. The listed points
are ok, but, for example, where is there any statement re sustainability concerns for business, for
energy, for changes in the population?
Agree with a lot of these ideas but again the wording 'create accessible and useable open spaces'
is a farce when part of the plan is so much more building.
The Civic Centre and the library form the heart of the village and must be cared for.
We have a good existing base to build on. Do not let them close the library.
Page 49
We need a major rethink about what we can achieve; this is the subject of Town Council games.
A sports hub concentrates all leisure activity on one site - this is not an advantage to the people
who live in the village.
Library and sporting facilities are already having a hard time keeping going. Why more
developments rather than just retaining those that already exist.
Unless Civic Centre is run on a truly cost neutral basis. Not subsidised by local Council tax payers.
More economical energy.
A sporting hub should be a focus of the strategy - to provide a centre of excellence.
The creation of a central sports and leisure hub at the potential expense of losing valuable open
space elsewhere within the village is not something that I feel I can support.
I would think redeveloping the existing leisure facilities would be more suited than wasting the
brownfield sites which could be used for housing.
Alsager already has a Leisure Centre. We don't need a second one just across the road from the
first.
How would building on Cedar Avenue Playing Fields help to 'create accessible open spaces' - surely
a contradiction.
A central 'hub' of sports facilities is detrimental to the 'village' feel. Local access / travel issues?
This is a vital strategy. It would be a disgrace and disaster if the facilities at the MMU site were
lost. Every effort should be made to create the sports hub.
Again, this phrase is rather jargonish and meaningless but if the Council is proposing to support
the local library and sports, leisure and cultural facilities this is much to be desired. The Plan is not
very clear on how such developments will actually be achieved.
Agree with the strategy proposed.
Ensure that in every aspect of these future developments, the promotion of sustainability be
paramount.
Totally agree.
An improved facility at Manchester Metropolitan including a larger pool would be a real advantage
to the local community.
Library will become mostly irrelevant (save for children's books). No consideration of what to do
with the building.
A supermarket of a decent size would also create community and more people would use the
same shop so it would also become a meeting point.
I agree the Library, Civic Centre and other community facilities should be improved and
maintained. Also, using existing sporting facilities at the former MMU Campus site seems an
obvious choice as it's already there. I don't understand though why there is a need to create
accessible and useable open spaces, when they already exist, e.g. in Wood Park and Cedar Avenue
playing fields, where it is being proposed that houses should be built.
Will all the town's sporting/leisure clubs be expected/encouraged/forced to move to the MMU
site? Moving all the football, cricket, tennis and bowls to MMU will certainly free up a lot of
building land. Personally I think that they are better left distributed about the town.
Page 50
It seems strange to have a strategy to 'Create accessible and useable open spaces' when in other
parts of this document it talks about using already existing 'accessible and usable open spaces' for
residential development. To remove one and then create another at additional cost does not seem
an efficient use of tax payer’s money.
Basic leisure facilities, affordable to all, are important to promote health. Subsidy by the council is
well justified. I do not want the current Council-run Leisure Centre facilities replaced by expensive,
privately-run ones.
Focus these new facilities at the MMU on the young people. Give them a focal point to enjoy not
just sporting activities but other leisure activities - table tennis, films, youth club etc. Somewhere
safe and warm so they are not sucked into the Milton Park Saturday experience as their only
entertainment. It’s not just 'Creating accessible and useable open spaces', its preserving the
current ones by not building on the remaining green spaces in Alsager. Use the brownfield sites
sensibly to minimise the need to destroy the current open spaces.
Important to retain current green spaces
Basic leisure facilities, affordable to all, are important to promote health. Subsidy by the council is
well justified. I do not want the current Council-run Leisure Centre facilities replaced by expensive,
privately-run ones.
Additional/improved provision can be created on the back of additional new development.
Key to build on new opportunities as Alsager Town Council takes over services from Cheshire East.
There are too many competing ideas here. If Sainsbury's mega-store were to go ahead there
would, no doubt, be a town centre worth the name within a couple of years. If all the housing
proposals were allowed then Alsager would become one large soulless dormitory town - with
inadequate educational opportunities for the children of the drone families.
However, the theme states to create accessible and useable open spaces. We already have access
to open useable spaces so it would be unwise to build on these and also it would be a
contradiction to the aims.
These all sound great ideas as long as money is available - who is paying? the council? Doesn't this
need to balance facilities with available resources and priorities?
The accessible and useable open spaces should be created around Alsager to preserve our
segregation from neighbouring areas.
No more pubs, clubs etc which might bring potential trouble.
Sounds like a Tory manifesto.
Cheshire East, have given up on local provision, Civic Centre etc.
Community needs greenspace close to residents not a car journey away.
People want greenspace in walking distance or they will move out of town, strongly disagree.
Madness to take any green spaces already established as vital local facilities and much enjoyed by
existing residents.
Sustain the greenspaces we have instead of including them on a development list.
This seems more an attempt to maintain conditions as they are not a step forward.
Unlikely.
But who pays for improvement to Civic Centre and Library? Does Sports Hub include existing
Page 51
swimming pool on MMU?
Library yes, Civic no. It needs too much money spent on it. How can you have a 'Sports Hub' with
sports fields?
Should not be built on greenspaces / football pitches.
Facilities at MMU must be put to good use.
We do not need a new sports centre - we already have a leisure centre.
What about the problem of the elderly and old.
I do not agree with the use of farm land for housing and cemetery
But we have accessible and useable open spaces that you want to build on.
But what is the detail and meaning or is just marketing gibberish!
In any future revision of the Draft Strategy there needs to be a stronger link between Sustainable
Communities and Theme 1 Housing, particularly in relation to suitable housing sites which should
benefit from a sound relationship to the existing urban area and overall accessibility to services
and facilities. It is clear that some of the preferred and alternate development sites have
questionable deliverability and are therefore unlikely to greatly contribute towards the creation of
sustainable communities.
Page 52
5 Connectivity
Do you agree with the Connectivity Theme in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (86%); No (14%);
Comments
Retain free car parking at surrounding car parks but perhaps a car for the car park in the town
centre. Thus increasing the footfall of people using the "other side of town".
Better bus / train integration and cycle routes into the village.
I think it will be especially helpful to have cycle lanes. I think that would greatly increase the
number of cyclists.
Encouraging Cycling
1. New footpaths should be designated as cycle tracks, and old ones upgraded, to encourage
cycling around town.
2. The bridge over the railway east of Alsager Station should be turned into a cycle way convenient
for those on the Barrett estate - and also providing a back way from Edwards Way into the town
centre.
3. Put "dog rings" on most shop fronts, to which to padlock bikes. They should take little cost and
no space, and encourage cycling. Particularly for Fryers.
Footpaths
Roadside footpath provision is good, but there are some notable gaps. The ones of which I am
aware are:
1. Along Close Lane from Cranberry Lane to Nursery Road. On the East side of Close Lane, land is
provided for this use but there is no footpath: the land is given to lawn and hedge.
2. Along the south side of Lawton Road from the end of the footpath to the bus stop at St Gabriel's
church - currently people often walk on the road. And a continuation of this to Edwards Way
would be very helpful for those residents, though dearer owing to the topography.
Page 53
3. Along the south side of Crewe Road from the end of the footpath to the bus stop, and onwards
to the road to the Old Mill. Best of all if it can be continued to the Plough.
4. Along Crewe Road (either side) as far as the road to Radway Green. There is a gap in footpath
provision along the north side of the road - which should be continued as far as the houses west of
the garden centre.
5. From the Wilbraham Arms to the Salt Line, very dangerous and frequented by families with
young children.
6. Pedestrian access to Milton Gardens at the SE corner: currently access is gained by a gap in the
railings which, whenever repaired, is soon broken again.
As well as improving cycle routes, footpaths and footways should be improved.
Essential that car parking remains free to encourage people to support local business.
Meaning?
Nice words. But history to date goes against this. First you try and impose parking charges. Now
we have to suffer a totally unnecessary and unneeded desecration of the central car park due
commercial expansion. Unless you can move the Rail station to a more central location then
despite any tinkering the connectivity will not be improved.
Physical connectivity is broadly covered though rather uninspired - could take more account of
sustainability. How about a strategy which includes the exploration of new ways of increasing
connectivity ('Boris' bikes, electric cars, hail and ride local buses). Connectivity is not just about
within Alsager. The strategy should say more about satisfying needs for connectivity between
Alsager and other places, both for Alsager residents to go to other places and for outsiders to visit
Alsager. Connectivity also has a social dimension. The strategy does not specifically address this.
Totally agree on this one.
Keep the car parking FREE!
Improve safety for walking and cycling. Charge for car parking.
More cycle routes.
Need to ensure that free parking remains for essential visitors to the towns facilities.
Maintain free car parking provision.
The current situation appears to be considerably better than most other towns I visit and so I do
not feel that anything can be greatly improved.
I think it would be hard to "improve" upon the feature of having a station in the village, this is just
adding text to fill out a section with little content and is meaningless.
Car Parking throughout the town must be kept free of charge. The car parks are used by the
community not just shoppers.
Town centre car park provision needs to be kept free if local retail to thrive.
Given the Mary Portas Initiative then parking for local shopping should remain free. This should be
part of the strategy.
If this is largely about public transport and cycle routes, then such developments would be
desirable.
Will contribute towards creation/ maintenance of a sustainable settlement.
Cycle routes, footpaths and walkways...
Page 54
Car parking should remain free in Alsager. If not, people will shop elsewhere.
Needs discussion re broadband and mobile phone mast provision.
New open spaces should not mean loss of existing ones. Retain free town centre car parking. Give
priority to vehicle-free pedestrian, as well as cycle, access.
FREE car parking is key. Also now my children are old enough to use the buses and trains on their
own I realise the importance of these links to Hanley and Crewe (and the wider world) to give
them opportunities to develop their independence.
New open spaces should not mean loss of existing ones. Retain free town centre car parking. Give
priority to vehicle-free pedestrian, as well as cycle, access.
Car parking a key facility if we are to bring people into Alsager Town Centre. Must be free to
accommodate primary and pre-school, Civic Centre and market.
Real concerns that the road infrastructure would be adequate and that would impact greatly of
both public and private transport.
But retain car parking within the town centre which is free. This is most important as the whole
atmosphere and life of the town is dependent on accessibility. Otherwise there would be a
contradiction. Improving what we already have means to keep them going and keep paths open.
We already have an efficient, accessible and fully informative buts service and rail station.
All sound great - is the local council doing all this or expecting all the other services to provide
these facilities What is the integrated bus and train service - all buses going to the station?
Free car parking in the town would partly counteract the detrimental effect of Sainsbury’s (if it is
permitted).
Current poor services mean this is great.
Needs a lot of improving.
Restore 20 min buses to Crewe and extend 315 to Aldi traffic lights in Kidsgrove.
Address charging at rail station. No drop off pick up provision which results in roadside parking.
Keep car parking free.
Not improvement the aims are what the Council should have been doing up to now.
Off all main routes (except rail) nothing starts here.
Ok if it happens.
Where will you put the cycle routes the roads are too narrow. Cut down more trees? I don't think
so.
Generally this is very good already. Do not know about cycle routes. But have mobility issues and
like public transport links.
Bloody rubbish - what on earth are you talking about.
Please do something to enforce existing residential speed limits - speeding cars stop people
walking and cycling.
Theme 5 is generally supported, however, there should also be a direct reference to the
enhancement and creation of public footpaths and the ways in which new residential
development can contribute towards this and the benefits this can have for the local community.
Page 55
Should add in - 'Incentivise low carbon technologies through the provision of appropriate
infrastructure'.
Page 56
6 Village Character and Environment
Do you agree with the Village Character and Environment Theme in the draft Alsager Town
Strategy?
•
•
Yes (85%); No (15%);
Comments
Yes. Alsager needs to remain as it is and not become just another high street.
NO! All Green Belt should be maintained.
'Conserve network of green spaces' directly contradicts the intention to build on MMU!
Green Belt gap between Alsager and Potteries is vital.
Again desirable points emphasised, although control to achieve might be problematic.
You can't do this if you build on the Green Belt land.
Agree with the statement as written. Pity the later parts of this document disclose the truth
behind the nice wording.
It is not at all clear what 'maintain character and village feel' actually means, particularly in the
context of a settlement of around 20,000 people. As for Theme 4, this theme has an orthogonal
dimension. The remaining points are good.
Again a very hypocritical statement where to say conserve and enhance green space and improve
access to the open countryside. There will be less and less green space, can't you see that?
We need the existing green fields retained between existing housing and the M6.
Will not be achieved with the present planning regime.
Will not be achieved by building an area like J.
Page 57
The character must be maintained as this defines what Alsager is. Green spaces and Green Belt
land must be conserved for leisure uses, as must open spaces and countryside.
Totally agree - very much so!
This could be spoilt.
You don't retain a village character by building another 1,000 houses. Also you don't conserve and
enhance greenspaces by building on greenfield land.
Too cramped.
Preserve and maintain green and open spaces.
I would be in agreement with your aims if you were not recommending in the same document that
we do away with playing fields and football pitches along with various other greenfield sites and
then in there place you are recommending that there be built further homes whose new residents
will not be able to enjoy the open space and facilities that already exist.
Maintaining the Green Belt areas is of vital importance.
Definitely keep this please.
The alternative development areas are not in keeping with this strategy and should be deleted.
There is a tension between this objective and what the Plan says about it and the proposals for
more residential development.
Important steps to maintain character of the area.
Maintain the Green Belt between Alsager and its neighbouring towns, but also in the town itself,
ensure that popular open spaces are retained for public relaxation and enjoyment.
This is definitely a priority. The Woodside Park field is currently used by everyone. It was a joy to
see all the families sledging in the snow and having fun. Families often use the field in good
weather to have a picnic and use the park facilities. People exercise their dogs and meet and greet
each other regularly. It provides access to the Salt Line and other Country walks. It is heartening to
see the space being used and enjoyed by people of all ages.
All the green spaces around Alsager should be protected.
Very important to conserve Green Belt land.
I think the centre needs to reflect the population size an status of small town, not be a small town
with pathetic facilities and limited growth because development is restricted and limited.
Why put a proposal for house building on existing green spaces that already have access to the
open countryside, particularly Wood Park (area C). It seems to perfectly fulfil this purpose already
without the need to create it somewhere else.
I'll say it again Alsager is a town NOT a village.
As mentioned before, there should be no building on existing Green Belt or greenfield sites, and
existing sports areas, such as Wood Park and Cedar Avenue should not be encroached upon.
As in Strategic Theme 4: here the document talks about the need to 'Conserve and enhance the
network of greenspaces throughout the town' whilst proposing to develop two existing public
open spaces (greenspaces) into residential housing.
Ensure Green Belt is maintained ALL ROUND Alsager to retain 'village feel'.
Page 58
As a fairly new dog walker I have come to appreciate the paths and walkways around Alsager. This
is key to its character and feel and it's very important that we preserve it.
Conflict here between "conserve and enhance the network of greenspaces throughout the town"
and building such a huge number of new houses, the 2 objectives do not fit together.
But all of the above concerns, if unheeded, could lead to the loss of Alsager's character.
Yes but more housing will impact on open countryside.
Maintaining the character and village feel of Alsager is to keep Alsager free from development of
new houses. To maintain the Green Belt is of upmost importance. Conserve and enhance the
network of greenspaces throughout the town is to keep on planting flowers and trees. Perhaps
wild flowers along the footpaths in the open countryside.
Alsager is a small town made special by it not being connected to other surrounding housing
conurbations. The feeling of 'going into Alsager' must be maintained. Characterless construction is
destructive to 'feel'.
Importantly maintain Green Belt between former Borough of Crewe and Alsager Parish.
Great, Sainsbury’s would destroy this.
This would be good, Sainsbury’s or supermarket on current Twyfords plot would take business out
of Alsager.
Vital to maintain this amongst all the development and expansion.
Definitely has a village feel.
Conservation and massive development are clearly contradictory and impossible to achieve.
Keep greenspaces free from housing.
Aims not compatible. Maintain countryside and cover land with houses.
Needs diversity of high, middle and low income.
What village feel? And where are all those greenspaces in the town?
Provision of footpaths very important.
Footpaths are already being made impossible to walk because of gates being chained and styles
impossible to get over.
Need more green spaces (play areas).
Not certain there is that much connection between Alsager and Stoke.
We have lost so many green spaces. The car park was a great park at one time.
Need car parking to access Salt Line and Barrowpit Meadows a fabulous asset. Hard to access if
one has a mobility problem.
It is very good as it is, but not helpful and by reducing car park spaces for more supermarkets.
Whist my client supports the overall aims and objectives of Theme 6 and supports the concept of
village character, any future strategy should be clear that Alsager is a Town and therefore future
development needs must be considered in this context. In terms of village character this can only
be supported in the context of meeting appropriate development needs for the current and future
needs of Alsager and should relate more closely to the need for good design rather than quantum
of development. The maintenance of the Green Belt is strongly supported given the availability of
Page 59
other sites which are available, suitable and deliverable and not constrained by Green Belt policy,
on this basis it is therefore considered that the strategy does not need to, and therefore should
not promote any Green Belt sites for residential development.
One of the sub-themes here is to maintain the Green Belt between Alsager and The Potteries. In
our submissions to the Core Strategy, Issues and Options we set out many reasons why that part
of Green Belt to the south of the town, immediately adjoining the railway line, should be released
from Green Belt, particularly the Raleigh Hall Fanny's Croft site. We described these exceptional
circumstances as being the need to provide new homes in accordance with Cheshire East housing
requirements; the excellent sustainability of the site in relation to local services , facilities ,
employment areas by various modes of transport, including rail; that the development would
make no material difference to the separating function of the vast extent of the Green Belt in this
area on the edge of Alsager; that the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in PPG2 are not
compromised and that defensive Green Belt boundaries identified by landscape features can be
achieved.
Page 60
7 Infrastructure and Services
Do you agree with the Infrastructure and Services Theme in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (80%); No (20%);
Comments
Ensure that appropriate additional burial provision is available. Also ensure schools, nursery care.
Activities for older teenagers.
These are mandatory not a vision or objective.
The sewers on Crewe Road are crumbling, with potholes opening up frequently; one is forming at
the moment opposite Hall Drive. It needs a complete refurbishment.
High-speed broadband, 3G / 4G mobile coverage and public WiFi should be provided.
Part 1 – No. Part 2 – Yes.
First see overall comments re "strategy" in the any comments section at the end. . The words are
very vague and even then do not address the necessary activities; see my observations on
objective 4. Although important it is very odd that the only specific item described is 'increased
burial provision'.
Disagree with having another cemetery. More work should be put into people having cremations
as yet again there is not enough land space for these cemeteries/burial grounds.
Agree with cemetery provision at Twyfords.
I do not agree with unidentified "new development within the town".
But no mention of necessary road improvements.
Can we get away from more and more land being put aside for burials - for instance have green
burials in woodlands etc.
Roads are the only problem for development. Cemetery provision is available at nearby Crewe.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Infrastructure and Services
Page 61
Medical centres needed.
Firstly can we work with utility providers to fix what we already have Ie. the open sewer or sewer
overflow as it is officially known that runs through area C on your maps I have in the past reported
on several occasions that raw sewerage was flowing in the brook bordering plot C. I was under the
belief that we had done away with open sewers hundreds of years ago but the afore mentioned
brook flows with raw untreated sewerage each time we have a down pour.
There is concern about the ability of the existing road network to deal with the increased level of
housing.
Cemetery or consecrated burial ground? Would latter need to be within Christ Church Parish?
Additional burial provision within the town is very important and urgent. It can not wait until the
Local Plan is adopted.
Given the poor existing state of the infrastructure, its enhancement should be top priority for the
Council. The Plan's indications -such as they are- regarding implementation of improvement are
not convincing and a cynical view would be that the town will end up with more housing,
crowding, traffic and pressure on services as a consequence of this Plan.
Ensure that all burial provision, present and future, is maintained to the highest of standards - not
forgetting the war memorial.
Cable broadband.
Christ Church Burial ground is almost full- it would be absolutely wrong to not provide a burial
ground within Alsager. The footfall at the current graveyard is quite high and is a well used facility.
Grieving local residents should not have to start to travel out of Alsager.
The present burial ground behind Christ Church has well under 100 plots left for burial and a
similar number sites for cremated remains. There is an increasing danger in 2 or 3 years time that
people born and bred in Alsager will have to be buried out of town as both Congleton Borough
Council and now Cheshire East meet their statutory obligations as to their borough-wide provision
and have declined to help Alsager in burying its dead in the town. I know the Town Council have
been in search of a new site for a considerable time and this document supports opening up the
bronze age burial site at Lawton lights but will that be up and running by 2015. I am surprised that
the Town Council were unable to negotiate a piece of land off the school with the school being
compensated with land on the MMU site.
Sounds like a good idea, yet so much autonomy has already been taken away from Alsager
In a densely populated country, burial should be discouraged: no more cemetery provision, thankyou.
In a densely populated country, burial should be discouraged: no more cemetery provision, thankyou.
New cemetery a key need.
There's needs to be investment even if there was no expansion or development
Again this is a contradiction. The theme talks about providing new development within the town,
which would be contrary to keeping a village feel to the place. Burial provision - I do not think it is
necessary to provide this. There are adequate alternatives.
Again shouldn't there be something about cost effective here?
Could this include some maintenance to existing roads and footways?
Page 62
In previous plans Cheshire CC recognised the problems relating to the poor road network, which
serves to gridlock this town twice daily. Cheshire CC recognised this and recognised the need for
future housing to centre around the B5077.
Leave our greenspace alone. Plenty of brown sites available.
No! We want our greenspace! Plenty of spaces (brownfield sites) available.
Infrastructure overloaded already.
Progress up to now gives little hope of success.
My feelings are that the present cemetery should have been expanded instead of letting the
School usurp the land for playing fields.
Very important.
Our infrastructure and services are already overloaded.
Roads need repairing especially after being dug up.
How do you drive and walk through Alsager, parked cars on pavements.
This should be done first before anything else.
Any development of a 'sports/leisure' hub may compete with current leisure centre and ultimately
cause its closure with the loss of the swimming pool - an essential facility for disabled people. A
decision must be made as to which pool to support attempting to keep MMU and school pools
open in a town of 12,000 will not be viable and could result in loss of both.
Theme 7 should be developed further to identify the key components of infrastructure and
services that need to be enhanced over the forthcoming plan period. This will be essential when
formulating any future infrastructure delivery plans to support the Local Plan.
Page 63
8 Deliverability and Viability
Do you agree with the Deliverability and Viability Theme in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (78%); No (22%);
Comments
You might want to actually put something in there other than general and meaningless words.
Sorry there is no substance to these statements to agree to.
First see overall comments re "strategy" in the any comments section at the end. . The statement
for this theme seems to be a sort of catch all statement! 'Be flexible and be sure to question
feasibility and viability'. I guess it's best to say this out loud.
Sad to say but we are living in very harsh financial times of which everyone is aware although from
some of these ideas in this document I do not believe you are. If any of the ideas has a major
impact on the likes of council tax, especially with your ideas of affordable housing where the
people will no doubt be on major benefits, I think the council will be in for a very rough ride. I
personally am already paying extortionate amounts of council tax for not a lot of services.
Don't understand this one.
This means anything you want it to mean.
It is possible.
I would hope that you pursue the opinion of all of the residents of Alsager and listen more closely
to their concerns before embarking on delivering your vision for the town.
But this will need strict adherence to and control of this planning policy document. How this will be
achieved should be stated.
The Plan simply draws on what are popularly known as 'weasel words' when it comes to this
theme.
An objective view should be taken in terms of achieving the vision when considering new
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Deliverability
Page 64
development.
Need to consider demand on existing housing stock before 1,000 new homes built. Also consider
HS2 link to Manchester on impact on Alsager.
Does this mean that changes can be made without further consultation?
What does this actually mean?
These statements provide a 'get out clause' and negate all the strategy proposals. The inclusion of
these statements makes the consultation of no real value.
All this seems ill-defined and almost superfluous. - What does 'Develop flexibility to respond to
market conditions' mean? - Surely the Council, as a matter of course, examines 'the feasibility and
viability of schemes'!
No idea what this means. Is it saying that schemes to support this vision will be cancelled as non
viable if market conditions change? I hope not. We need to ensure that the money generating
parts of the scheme (e.g. building houses) are not completed and then there is no money for the
'enhancing' projects that cost money.
Meetings are needed to consult with Alsager residents, this questionnaire is not widely known
about.
Sorry, have little faith that there will be sensible and sustainable development in the future.
Develop with caution and consultation with local community.
Meaningless 'management speak'.
'Overall vision' would make a nice change.
Vacillation!
OK.
Can't see a lot happening it has taken 10 years to get a new Co-op.
I would expect this is a part of the job anyway.
If it means cash neutral and does not become a burden on current and future rate payers.
The need for flexibility to respond to market conditions at any given point is supported as is the
need to examine the feasibility and viability of schemes in the delivery of the overall vision of the
Town Strategy. It is however noted that many of the alternate development options put forward in
this strategy have not yet considered availability, suitability and deliverability in any detail. Prior to
any update of the Town Strategy, those sites which have been identified as both preferred and
alternate development sites need to be fully considered in terms of their policy designations and
their feasibility and viability to determine deliverability and whether it is appropriate to promote
such sites.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Deliverability
Page 65
Q4 Potential Development Options
Do you agree with the potential areas for future development in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Potential Development Options
Page 66
Site A
Do you agree with site A (former MMU Campus) as a potential area for future development?
•
•
Yes (80%); No (20%)
Comments
Too many houses for site.
Any sports hub is for the benefit of all local residents, not merely a financial opportunity for a
regional hub. Could include biking / horse riding.
I think this would be an excellent use of this site. I think using the sport facilities for the benefit of
the town would be a huge asset.
Roads too narrow, safety (primary and secondary children) on busier roads. Just support leisure
use.
Access to open playing fields to be easy if area round Alsager Football Ground shut off.
Important not to lose all green space.
Proposals would make sensible and positive use of the site and be of general benefit.
It is unused and pointless.
Keep tennis courts.
Existing buildings should not be wilfully destroyed but used. Re-instatement of theatre/cinema,
hopefully subsidized, to keep kids off the streets. Space for pre and after school clubs if necessity
drives mothers out to work. Use of kitchen and dining facilities to encourage various types of
function. Preservation of playing fields and amenities. NO BUILDING ON GREENFIELD SITES.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Development Option A
Page 67
No more houses. No building on Green Belt. Use the MMU sports campus for what it's intended
for. Sport. Research, training, etc. Make it the central hub for UK sports people to get the best
training, physio, nutrition etc. Make it into something world class. This would be far more useful
than more houses.
Appropriate for mixed use but must retain greenfield for sports use.
Agree with the provision of a ‘Sports and Leisure Hub’. Agree with brownfield redevelopment.
Totally disagree with any need for greenfield development.
Area A. The summary on page 9 and the details on page 12 cover almost anything except large
scale industrial use.
I would like to see the sport facilities kept as the present Leisure Centre does not have the capacity
to cope now never mind the future. All the old accommodation building can be utilised for some
form of housing without losing any existing green land. A school is a must as the High School is
already very busy and I believe oversubscribed for our children's future requirements.
Do not understand what 'high tech' employment development means.
If we must have more housing these two sites offer the least objectionable. MMU site must be
very carefully watched, only the brownfield element used for building so stated in the Inspectors
Report.
Residential and leisure only. NO SUPERMARKETS.
But not by allowing a developer to change the conditions, brownfield site area only.
If we have to have new houses, then brownfield sites like this should be the only places
considered.
Carefully managed, this area could go well.
Sports centres.
Needs roadways to support i.e. Hassall Road
Providing access to Hassall Road is maintained.
No further developments required for sports and leisure.
Sports facilities should be retained at all costs. Development should be on existing footprint and
not on green areas.
Private land. The sports facilities are 'pie in the sky'!
A large proportion of the playing fields should be retained for the town's use (by schools and
sports organisations). Some consideration should be given to including a leisure complex and
entertainment centre.
Road infrastructure would need improving in and out of this site to support a sporting hub.
Not including the playing field areas, I think they should become public open space, possibly with
some landscaping etc.
Maintain the current leisure and sporting facilities.
This space should be used solely for residential development.
Alsager already has a Leisure Centre. We don't need a second one just across the road from the
first.
Page 68
Perfect land for mixed use although sports facilities will be further to travel for people in the East
of the town.
Obviously abandoned and in need of re-development.
Absolutely.
Sporting facilities should be kept and local communities and clubs encouraged to use them. An
alternative to housing might be a high quality holiday village (similar to Hoseasons lodges) that
would attract visitors from UK and abroad, provide local employment, utilise sporting facilities,
boost the local economy, ideally placed for the many local walks and Cheshire’s visitor attractions.
Could extension of Christ Church graveyard be within this area, as closest to existing graveyard?
'Out of town' sports hub? People from east of town will travel by car to get to it.
Significant access problems will be caused by additional housing and the priority should remain on
the provision of sports and leisure facilities. The whole town would be affected by the increased
traffic that would result from additional residential development owing to the access routes
involved.
The lack of progress has been surprising given the reasons for inclusion of this site in the current
Local Plan. Consideration needs to be given as to whether the development brief is still relevant or
needs review given passage of time. A more firm commitment is needed to a development
timetable for this site from the current owners/occupiers.
Would hope that the existing greensward / copse of woodland adjoining Hassall Road might be
retained - another valued stretch of C20th rural heritage.
The former MMU campus has great potential to improve the leisure and open green gap space in
Alsager. It should NOT be used to build new housing, however the existing halls of residence could
potentially be developed to provide lo-cost rented accommodation for young people.
The sports and leisure hub to consider indoor tennis courts as nearest public purpose built
facilities are approx 40 miles away David Lloyd at Cheadle Hulme or Stafford. This could attract
visitors from all of Cheshire East. Improved Swimming Pool facilities are also vital for local schools
and residents.
Housing removes a large Green & leisure possibility in proximity to a number of housing areas, and
would push the semi rural feel out of town. There is a wonderful opportunity to create something
special for education and recreation in an easy to reach area by foot or bicycle for the whole of
Alsager.
Yes, but no to proposed site J.
Only "yes" if the number of dwellings proposed is not increased and existing sports pitches are
retained - insufficient current information to say a definite "yes" or "no".
Retail development could be permitted here also? A brownfield site could be uses for a proper
scale retail supermarket development plus other shops and possibly even graveyard. It would all
enhance the facilities of Alsager and bring back the shoppers who currently shop elsewhere- i.e.
Crewe/ Wolstanton for supermarket. Why could part of MMU not be a large supermarket as well
as Leisure facilities and hub? Greenfield land should not be used. Petrol station beside
supermarket too.
If there is a need for extra housing this seems like a good area to put it on, and reduce the amount
of sporting facilities in this one area, at the expense of other areas around the town.
Page 69
Keep to brownfield sites and retain greenfield sites for sports and leisure only and help preserve
the character of the area. There is a shortage of playing fields in the borough and at present these
sports fields are used extensively by local teams as well as the M.M.U. It is crucial that we
safeguard the playing fields for our young people as part of an agenda to encourage exercise and a
healthy lifestyle. Also have major concerns over the access to the "Daisybank fields" (behind
Sunnyside Lane) - access from Dunnocksfold Road would be totally unsuitable as it is a minor road
with no pavement on one side. Infrastructure on Dunnocksfold Road not adequate, drains, sewers
etc.
Only build on brownfield sites. No new build projects on existing playing fields. Leave open spaces
as open spaces!
Great to see this area in use again rather than falling into decay. the sooner work starts here the
better.
If there were to be developments then only the brownfield site should be developed.
Given the site's location out of centre, it is important that the scale of any new retail development
is restricted to a small scale local convenience offer and that its delivery is linked to the provision
of new housing from a phasing perspective i.e. the retail element cannot be brought forward until
the housing element of the scheme, or the vast majority of it is delivered - this would ensure that
it is only delivered to meet the local demand arising from the increase in housing development as
opposed to drawing trade and footfall away from the town centre.
Need to have a balance of housing, commercial and open space.
I don't think there's enough information here. I see the need for housing and the potential for
housing in this locality. I would want to know much more about proposals for Leisure and School.
As long as it does not build on Green belt and does not contradict with the existing facilities in
Alsager. Concert hall, rehearsal spaces, theatre workshop spaces. Hotel and spa with conference
facilities to house touring international orchestras, youth orchestras. We do not need 300 homes.
That would be in contradiction to the vision of Alsager as having a village feel and there is a water
shortage. Better to provide an open space. Burial ground if the needs must. More trees. A wood.
To exclude Area J.
Good to use brownfield where possible.
Keep as sport facilities. Also keep the swimming pool.
More housing on this site.
Yes / limited house building.
More housing.
Potential for High School Sixth Form facilities. As 1,000 houses will put strain on existing. No to
housing.
The north field of Area J is currently a greenfield site.
Wanton destruction of top class educational facility.
Convenience retail and pub/cafe really important in this area.
All green areas should be kept we already have roads blocked because of school traffic.
With emphasis on sports facilities.
Should be for residential and sport facilities only not for office or high tech development.
Page 70
Access issues for volume of housing etc proposed. Too close to school.
But only on brownfield land as it was promised by C.C.C. a couple of years ago.
Would prefer to see more leisure / community facilities here than extending on to J - greenfield
site.
Not once in this document is reference made to the swimming pools (a) at the leisure centre (b) at
MMU (currently closed).
The former Manchester Metropolitan University Campus (Area A) is considered suitable for a
range of uses including residential, sports and leisure facilities, small scale retail and employment
uses. A planning application seeking consent for the demolition of buildings on the site and
redevelopment for residential, employment, neighbourhood retail and community uses was
submitted on 28th September 2010 (10/3831C). According to the Council's website, this
application has not yet been decided. As such, it is unclear whether the site will be brought
forward for redevelopment in the immediate future.
Whilst this predominantly brownfield site represents a redevelopment opportunity it is highly
unlikely to come forward soon. MMU has informed the Parish Council and LPA that they are in no
hurry to find a developer for the site due to the current property market. Area A cannot therefore
be relied upon for residential development in the next 5 years. Alternative sources must be
allocated and Area H and in particular the site that is subject of application no. 12/0893C, provides
such a source.
We welcome proposals to redevelop the previously developed parts of the Manchester
Metropolitan University campus and the Twyfords site.
Not as proposed.
Whilst it is acknowledged that Site A is within the urban area and is previously developed, the site
has yet to be marketed for disposal (which will take at least 12 months) and therefore the delivery
of housing on this site is unlikely to take place in the short term given that the site has not yet
achieved an outline planning consent. Should this site receive planning consent, build rates are
unlikely to exceed around 25-30 units per year and therefore this site will only make a limited
contribution towards housing completions and the five year supply.
The Draft Alsager Town Strategy allocates the Alsager Campus as ‘Preferred Development Area’.
The land is allocated as a ‘Mixed Use Development Option’. This reflects the proposed primary mix
of uses on the site which includes housing and a sports / leisure hub. The Strategy specifically
refers to a housing figure of 300 homes. It is also noted that a ‘Residential Development Option’
(i.e. Area J) lies to the west and if that site comes forward a masterplan for both sites would be
prepared.
MMU support the principle of their Alsager Campus being redeveloped. However, the University
consider that the broad range of uses included in the current planning application should be
reduced to focus on housing and a sports/leisure hub. In particular, it is considered that the site is
not appropriate for Class B1 Office Use (i.e. on page 12 referred to as ‘small scale office
development’ and ‘small scale high tech employment development’) and could accommodate
additional housing; this includes ‘extra care development providing housing for the older
population’, as referred to on page 12 of the Draft Strategy. It is considered that the references to
‘community facilities or a community venue’, ‘social venue for post sport activity’ and ‘commercial
sport and health related facilities’ should be retained in the finalised Town Strategy; albeit
acknowledging that they would be ancillary uses, if they were included in a future scheme for the
site.
The quantum of housing that could be accommodated on site will primarily depend upon the need
for sports and leisure facilities in Alsager, the stance taken by Sport England and the capacity of
Page 71
the local highway network. These very important factors need to be assessed in detail, in
conjunction with Cheshire East Council and local organisations, prior to the re-submission of an
outline planning application for the site. Another very important factor that must be taken into
consideration in the site’s future use is the maintenance/upkeep costs of the sport and leisure
facilities. Viability will be taken into account in any future proposals and will impact upon the mix
and quantum of uses proposed. It is considered that the Alsager Campus could potentially deliver
300 - 500 dwellings, reducing the demand for greenfield housing releases elsewhere in Alsager;
including the draft allocated housing site Area J. On this basis, it is considered that the reference to
a masterplan for Areas A & J together should be deleted. It is also considered that reference to the
Existing Development Brief (i.e. produced in October 2008 by Congleton Borough Council) is now
out of date and should be deleted. In particular, the publication of the National Planning Policy
Framework has significantly changed the policy guidance contained within the document.
MMU support the principle of their Alsager Campus being redeveloped and will work with
Cheshire East Council to bring forward the site. This will involve creating a new housing and a
sports/leisure hub for Alsager. The details of such a proposal are yet to be agreed but will reflect
the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainability. Ultimately, MMU wish to leave a
legacy that they can be proud of at their Alsager Campus.
Four of the other sites identified in the strategy are brownfield regeneration opportunities (A, B, D
and J) which may be difficult to deliver and may not deliver their full quota of affordable housing
and other community benefits because of viability issues.
There are so many complications with this particular site that it is unlikely to deliver many homes
in the short term. This is a site which should fall into the 6-10 years category. So much is
demanded from the site, extra care development, local retail development, offices, high-tech
employment, community facilities, a social venue, commercial sport and health related facilities,
that would be impossible to sort out through S106 Agreement, gain its planning permission, start
up the site and deliver homes within a 5-year period. This site should be seen as a mid/long term
site for the delivery of new homes.
Alsager has two large brownfield areas (MMU and Twyfords) surely that is enough land to provide
the housing quota. (We totally do not need another large supermarket). Use these areas and leave
greenfield sites alone.
More suitable sites are the MMU, less housing in that area and also 2 schools to cope with
demand, of course Twyfords also seems to be a better choice for building, its lack of use neither
used for walking or anything else.
Page 72
Site B
Do you agree with site B (Twyfords) as a potential area for future development?
•
•
Yes (84%); No (16%)
Comments
Road access on to site would be dangerous.
Remove the reference to a small retail development on the site, and any community venue should
be located towards the north west corner. There should be use made of the railway links for
distribution if any industry locates there.
Supermarket should be permitted.
Periphery of village, hence easier to travel to outlying areas.
Don't want retail use. Would look like 'town sprawl' and spoil the countryside look of the A50 area.
But no to large supermarket. Plenty nearby for car users.
Major supermarket (considerably bigger than the new Co-op) desperately needed to bring back
people to the town that go elsewhere. This would become a meeting place. Town centre will never
attract back the 90% of people who go elsewhere to shop.
Agree with possible inclusion of small scale retail development on this site. Large scale retail
development might affect town centre intentions adversely.
If 200-300 sq ft of retail - not supermarket if town centre shops are to be protected.
I think this site should be available to Sainsbury’s.
Will the houses be used though?
No more houses! Turn it into a science park, where new technology can grow, to regenerate the
area and help it move away from more traditional employment into modern times.
Appropriate for development as a brownfield site for mixed use
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Development Option B
Page 73
Being a brownfield site, I have no objection.
Area B. Clearly the proposed Sainsbury’s development here contravenes the proposals. I like the
idea of somehow developing the heritage / archaeological connection. Would this fit with the idea
of a new cemetery provision in the NE part of the site. The current link to the railway station AND
medical centre is not at all acceptable and will require some very sensible thought. Perhaps a new
path and cycle way running alongside the railway rather than around the existing industrial
complex would be a good idea. I don't support further Health Related facilities. These should all be
provided through the relatively new and underused Health Centre in Sandbach Road South and
access issues properly addressed.
Again, you are not losing any green sites as existing building s will be replaced and generally tidy
up what pertains to be a mess at present.
If we must have more housing these two sites offer the least objectionable.
Residential and leisure only. NO SUPERMARKETS.
Good area to development because of the proximity to the main road.
If we have to have new houses, then brownfield sites like this should be the only places
considered. This location is ideal for new houses.
Carefully managed, this area could go well.
Council houses would be good.
No supermarket.
This should be a priority as a new Sainsbury’s Store and Petrol Station is so important, especially
with even more development for houses. People will still use the main shopping area because of
the free parking.
Why is Sainsbury’s required - will it help in the development of Alsager as a village?
Sainsbury’s proposed development is an excellent first step. Filling station badly needed.
Too many houses already in Alsager.
Some provision should be made for this site to incorporate small business units to encourage local
start ups.
Limit housing development to 300 dwellings to allow space for continued storage / light industrial
use on other parts of the site.
This should remain commercial and be the focus of bringing new jobs to the area.
This space should be used solely for residential development
Have to approve this although industrial use to create employment would be preferred.
Abandoned and in need of re-development. Cannot see any problems with other properties.
Good idea and proposed supermarket was a also good.
Small high tech business units/start up units would be ideal for this site and with the right
landscaping would be unobtrusive for any local housing; it would encourage longer term
employment. Not for retail as this would put the town centre at risk.
Links to town centre would need to be improved (lack of footpath - Edwards Way to Catholic
Church) or road markings on Lawton Road.
School provision? Highway access? Excalibur and Highfields at capacity?
Page 74
A primary school is needed in this site. It is too far for small children to walk to existing schools.
Result multiple car journeys.
This is more sustainable especially if access from the main road is created as suggested in previous
planning report judgements about the town.
The site has potential for some housing but equally, subject to some redevelopment, still provides
a good contribution to employment opportunities in the town and some of the buildings in use for
employment are modern and could be re-used if existing occupiers vacate. Mixed use seems an
appropriate solution with appropriate controls to secure this.
Greater ideal would I believe be achieved should one day all the Fields Road/Excalibur industrial
activity be transferred to the Twyford’s site and their existing part of town become solely
residential.
I understood that a Sainsbury superstore was proposed to be built on this area.
How does the Sainsbury retail application fit in with the small scale local retail development
proposed in the strategy (page 13).
A well positioned small business unit areas for employment is an encouraging move to replace the
previous manufacturing base. The Area should focus on manufacturing and creation, NOT retail.
The centre of Alsager should maintain the position of retail area to prevent fragmentation and
therefore damage to small local shops.
Again brownfield site - possible large scale supermarket development- I fully support Sainsbury's
but possibly feel it should be more nearer the centre if that was possible. Sainsbury’s on Twyford’s
should be the size of Nantwich thought as this would achieve the pull of people from the area into
Alsager and stop the leakage of money out. In my opinion Alsager could support 3 decent sized
supermarkets not just the single expansion of Co-op. Petrol; station needs to be beside any large
supermarket too.
I don't feel that a Sainsbury’s store is necessary, but a group of smaller shops would benefit the
community.
To include Sainsbury store and petrol station as this will have no effect on the village as people
who would normally travel to Newcastle or Kidsgrove, would then shop in Alsager saving both
time and petrol.
Ideal location with easy transport links to main roads. Would not have much influence on the
character of the area. An ideal site for proposed new Sainsbury’s.
No need for large super market. COOP is now extending its store in the town centre.
Agree with this, as it cleans up the area.
I personally favour Sainsbury’s and some housing / businesses on this site. again it is a brownfield
site that is under used. A supermarket here would stop me driving to Kidsgrove or Crewe every
Saturday to visit Tesco. It would also mean I would do the rest of my shopping in Alsager too.
If developments went through this would be my preferred choice as it is a brownfield site.
Similar comments to the MMU site - Given the site's location out of centre, it would be clearly
inappropriate for any large scale retail development which would undoubtedly have a significant
adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. Whilst there may be some
justification for a local needs retail offer to meet demands arising from new housing here it is
critical that the scale of any new retail development is restricted to a small scale local convenience
offer (as per the recommended threshold in the supporting text) and that its delivery is linked to
Page 75
the provision of new housing and other employment uses from a phasing perspective i.e. the retail
element cannot be brought forward until the housing element of the scheme, or the vast majority
of it is delivered - this would ensure that it is only delivered to meet the local demand arising from
the increase in housing development as opposed to drawing trade and footfall away from the
town centre.
Yes mixed use but not large retail.
My views are coloured by views about Sainsbury's proposals. It would be a suitable site to consider
housing but I would like more information on the impact on to the Crewe Road/Lawton Road.
No to any supermarket; that would be in contrary to the vision of the town centre. No houses
needed as there are plenty for sale. We do not have to be in line with government policy just for
the sake of it. Business use yes. Create more open spaces. Plant more trees here. Create a
woodland. Outdoor play centre which would attract business and enhance the economy.
Especially for another supermarket.
There is a danger of a visual link between Church Lawton and Alsager forming a conurbation of
buildings.
With reservations. There is a danger of losing our segregation from other communities particularly in this area.
Use this for housing.
With limited use - no Sainsbury’s or garage.
Limited housing only. Value green space. Possibility of small industrial units.
Would like a Sainsbury’s to give choice other than Co-op.
Industrial and retail use only.
More housing, no Sainsbury’s, no out of town supermarket.
Yes, housing, no to supermarkets as would take business out of town.
Too many houses unless roads are improved, but generally agree.
Sensible use of brownfield site.
Some houses and light employment would have been better.
Convenience retail important not an out-of-town supermarket!
It is close to a main road so it makes more sense.
I do not want to see more houses in Alsager but if they must be built do not use green fields.
Twyfords could be used because of the location and former use.
Good access to avoid town centre congestion.
Access not via Alsager.
Prefer to see developed as a science / business park with no housing.
As the Council is aware, a full planning application for a new Sainsbury's store on part of the
former Twyfords Bathrooms site was submitted on 5th March 2012. The application is currently
being considered by the Council (ref. 12/0800C). The SSL store would provide in the order of 150
jobs. The remainder of the former Twyford Bathrooms site is subject to an outline application for
residential development comprising up to 435 dwellings. This application is also currently being
considered by the Council (11/4109C). These two applications, together with the retained Twyford
Page 76
Bathrooms' Distribution Centre and offices, for a comprehensive masterplan for the mixed use
redevelopment of the site. As such Sainsbury's support the identification of the site as a Preferred
Development Area for mixed use development. The Town Strategy considers that the site is
appropriate for a range of uses including residential, employment and amenity open space as well
as small-scale local retail development (200-300sqm). This quantum of development appears to
reflect the former masterplan for the sites, and not the current applications which propose a much
larger element of retail floorspace (4,000 sqm (gross)). As such, the vision outline in the Town
Strategy does not reflect the most up-to-date position. To ensure that the emerging Local Plan is
accurate and up to date, the reference to the amount of retail permitted in the Preferred
Development Area should be increased to 4,000 sqm (gross). In doing so we would emphasise that
the current proposals have been developed in full consultation with Officers and the local
community. The local community have vocally supported the proposals for a Sainsbury's store on
the site. A number of other sites for housing and mixed use development are also considered in
the Town Strategy. The following sites are considered to be less sequentially preferable for
development than the Twyford Bathrooms sites as they are greenfield sites on the edge of the
existing urban area: C, J, E, F, H and I. Sainsbury's considers the Twyford Bathroom site to be more
immediately deliverable than Areas A, C, J, E, F, H and I, given the current planning applications
which are being considered by the Council and the commitment of Sainsbury's and the landowner
to bring forward the sites redevelopment. As such, we support its designation as a Preferred
Development Site.
Whilst an application has been submitted for outline permission for the erection of up to 435No.
dwellings at the Twyfords site, the EIA Non-technical Report states that the assumed construction
period is 15 years; furthermore, reserved matters approval will be needed and a development of
the size proposed will have a lead in time of 2 - 3 years. It is therefore highly unlikely that the site
would deliver units in the short term and alternative sources of land are required; Area H and in
particular the site that is subject of application no. 12/0893C, provides such a source.
We welcome proposals to redevelop the previously developed parts of the Manchester
Metropolitan University campus and the Twyfords site
But not as proposed.
The Council is currently considering an outline planning application for up to 435 residential units
and site access. At this stage there doesn’t appear to be a house builder aligned to the site and
therefore delivery is unlikely to take place in the short term given that site disposal needs to take
place, reserved matters applications approved and aS106 agreed. In addition, the full extent of the
site (as shown in the strategy) is unlikely to come forward over the plan period given current
employment uses on the western part of the site, coupled with known contamination / ground
conditions given that the site has formerly undergone sand extraction.
and other community benefits because of viability issues. A number of these sites would also
represent a loss of employment land which would make Alsager less sustainable as a settlement.
It should be noted that existing woodland on the Twyford’s site is not ‘protected’, as stated in the
TS, although it is of landscape and wildlife value and should be retained as part of any
redevelopment of this site.
This site, despite its planning application, is beset with the same complicated demands that would
take years to sort out like MMU, namely extra care development, local retail, employment,
community venue , health facilities, public house, cemetery provision, landscaped buffer, further
archaeological investigation. As with the MMU site, the Twyfords site should be seen as a
middle/long term option, at lease 5 years hence.
Page 77
More suitable sites are the MMU, less housing in that area and also 2 schools to cope with
demand; of course Twyfords also seems to be a better choice for building, its lack of use neither
used for walking or anything else.
Page 78
Site C
Do you agree with site C (Football Ground and Pitches) as a potential area for future
development?
•
•
Yes (25%); No (75%)
Comments
Only if replaced on area A.
No need to move this, it is well used and draws much of its support from that area. Could open up
opportunities to develop further into green countryside.
This is a much used area, vital to the local community, not just the football ground but the pitches,
the park and the grass area, which provided invaluable clear space and recreational area for
families and individuals, as well as dog walkers and locals just enjoying the fresh air. This is not a
suitable residential development area as it is a greenfield site. Further development of Sports
facilities in Area A would centralise all sports to one location which would not benefit the
community.
I am happy with this so long as replacement facilities are placed at area A.
Contrary to point 8 of 'vision'.
Open space should be maintained.
Need to maintain leisure opportunities in this part of Alsager.
Only as long as Alsager Football Club facilities are relocated. This is a vital resource for the town’s
population / identity.
This area gets boggy - liable to flooding?
Assuming football facility will be re-established in Area A.
Provided the football ground is guaranteed to be re-sited in Area A.
Would not see this as priority in near future.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Development Option C
Page 79
Well established Football Club.
I have never used it.
Not used to full potential - good location for developments.
Part of old Alsager. Leave alone !!
No building on greenfield sites. Once they're gone, they're gone. Alsager will be a sprawling mass
of houses, and any new developments, unless for social housing, will not fit well with the majority
of houses in that area.
This greenfield site should not be developed for residential use unless adequate replacement is
made for the football pitches.
One of the vision points is to create a town with "a network of green spaces throughout the
town". We should not use the possible creation of a sports and leisure hub at MMU as an excuse
to remove green spaces and play areas within residential areas. Families want their children to be
able to go out by themselves and with friends to play, close to home.
This is a greenfield site. The earlier statements talk of ‘conserving green spaces’ this is a green
space and as I live adjacent I can state: It has almost constant use during daylight hours, from dog
walkers, children and families playing games, and when we have snow becomes a centre for
tobogganing. The football pitches are least of it use and consistent with the stated vision could be
moved to the new ‘Sport and Leisure hub’. The green space however should be conserved !!!!
Area C. Wood Park and the football ground should be retained within this area of Alsager.
Greenfield site immediately springs to mind. Many people already use this area for a wide array of
leisure activities and I believe the football club has recently signed a 21 year lease on the ground.
BAe systems has also spent a lot of funding in and around this area with assistance to the football
club following last years fire and also regards the new children's play area which is still an ongoing
development. This is a total no-brainer and will be one of the main areas where residents will fight
for keeping as is and you will certainly get a hostile reception here.
Depends on where the replacement facilities would be placed in Area A.
Sport and green space - no development.
Definitely not. This area is a vital breathing space for people living locally, for football, other
sports, fresh air, dog walking and people making use of the newly installed play equipment.
The football club should lose no facilities at all - hopefully improvements!
Play areas and pitches should be spread throughout Alsager for convenience of youngsters.
But not yet.
Don't stop football in this open space - I don't want it to migrate a mile away at the hub.
Not unless transfer of pitch to MMU site can be assured at reasonable cost.
Utter nonsense. This an enclosed ground with spectator facilities. Who is going to pay for it to be
moved?
Alsager Town FC provides a focus for the local community, including children's and youth teams.
They are also featured regularly (twice a week) in the local press (Evening Sentinel) thus raising the
profile of Alsager. Removal of this facility from Alsager would definitely be a retrograde step.
Would a new Alsager Town FC ground be provided in Area A as an alternative?
People use it.
Page 80
The road infrastructure would not cope with any additional housing. The area should be retained
for environmental reasons and even if the football club was re-sited elsewhere the green site
should be retained for leisure and open space for the large number of children living in the
immediate vicinity.
Current infrastructure is inadequate already. Keep the green open spaces and park.
Proposed move to MMU Site would compromise use for housing. Adjacent Wood Park is also
valuable recreational area.
Obesity is the greatest threat to this nation at the moment, yet this vision sets out a plan to move
various greenfield areas along with football pitches and playing fields to one central hub and I
cannot for the life of me see how this will help the health and well being of the people of Alsager,
should children not be able to play outside and not be confined to there rooms playing useless
video games, should you not be promoting more green spaces for people to walk there dogs and
gain vital exercise. What is evident is greed, in the form of local authorities bribing developers to
provide the new roads and infrastructure that should be funded by you and in exchange they get
to build new cardboard box homes on land that has been and should be set aside for the
community to enjoy. Why not take this opportunity to demolish some of the substandard homes
that already exist and replace them with new this type of regeneration is justified unlike what is
being proposed here.
This is Wood Park. My understanding is that this parcel of land was donated to the people of
Alsager to be used for recreational purposes. If this is the case it cannot be built on. It could be
compulsory purchase but from who and where would the money go.
Building houses on Alsager FC Ground and adjacent pitches represents a great loss of green space
for local residents. It runs counter to the Vision of a 'network of greenspaces throughout the
town'.
It seems that people living in parts of Alsager would like this option, but NOT the people living on
this estate. It is our ONLY open space for recreational activities and I strongly oppose this option.
How could anyone even think of removing football pitches. I hate football myself but feel that the
pitches are an important part of VILLAGE life
Not sure, but possibly yes.
Parks and sporting facilities need to be retained.
Would be loss of greenfield site.
Green Belt? See Theme 6 - removes local green space. School provision? Access / highways etc?
This would be green space behind an existing large estate and should remain so.
This is a greenfield site.
Provided that the Football Club can satisfactorily be accommodated elsewhere.
Partially in favour - the Football Ground yes, but there is scope for the retention of
park/grassland/pitch(es) for local residents' use.
This is a green gap area. We overlook the field and have had snakes, frogs and newts in the
garden, not to mention the variety of birdlife. This natural environment would be seriously
endangered if the area was turned into a housing estate. Furthermore, the field is an important
social area as outlined previously which meets with the proposals for providing health, social,
sporting and cultural needs of the residents, while being a link in the chain of green space, dotted
around the town.
Page 81
Does this mean Alsager Football ground to be moved to be part of MMU sports and leisure hub
complex?
This is the only green space easily accessible to the housing estate immediately adjacent and
should be maintained for the purpose of leisure and recreation.
Seems a shame to lose a football field.
A town the growing size of Alsager will need more than one place to play football. This land should
be kept for leisure.
Houses on the football pitches would be very detrimental to the local residents, who use this open
space all year round, for family activities, dog walking, sporting events, sledging in the winter and
access to the open countryside. Also, having recently had a new children’s play area and youth
shelter, it seems like a complete waste of money, and it would mean the local children wouldn't
have anywhere to run and play safely without having to cross at least one busy road. There have
also been bushes and trees planted by a local company to enhance the look of the area. If with the
building of new sporting facilities at the MMU campus site means the football ground becomes
unnecessary, then maybe houses could be build on that area only as the local residents don't have
general access to it, so wouldn't impact on the area as much.
This area is used by children, dog walkers and the local football team. This area should not be built
on. It is the only park area in the part of Alsager
Again - need to retain sports fields. Exercise needs to be encouraged and greed should not
overrule the more important agenda of encouraging exercise and a healthy lifestyle.
This is an existing and well used public open space. It provides a good access into the open
countryside and existing public footpaths, and has the best (possible the only accessible) sledging
bank in the town. There is some scope for development of the football stadium area into
residential with the inclusion of a community venue adjacent to the public open space.
Greenfield site. Very popular with the locals.
This area should remain a public open green space. It is much used and enjoyed by both adults and
children from the adjoining estates. Also, it helps maintain 'village feel' by maintaining
separateness from Church Lawton Parish.
This is a ridiculous idea and definitely should NOT go ahead. These playing fields and children’s
play area are very valuable spaces, we use these a lot! Do not build on these areas please. I and
everyone I speak to local to in this area agrees very very strongly.
I don't have strong views as I don’t live near them or use them. I would think it would be key that
the new facilities for foot ball were better than the current ones. I am slightly concerned that this
would leave the Woodside area with very little open space.
Should be retained as a greenfield site
This area should remain a public open green space. It is much used and enjoyed by both adults and
children from the adjoining estates. Also, it helps maintain 'village feel' by maintaining
separateness from Church Lawton Parish.
This is an open area and should be kept as such see your vision on green spaces. If the football
field why not the cricket club. Excellent location for housing!
This site should be retained for sporting and recreational activities.
A large green area which is historically leisure land and accessible to the community.
Absolutely not. Loss of the green space in this part of the town is not acceptable. The proposal for
housing with consequent traffic/noise and pollution, plus the impact on the roads of the estate for
Page 82
access is ridiculous.
Loss of parkland amenities and recreation facilities.
Contrary to the open spaces vision of Alsager. It would be unwise to loose this open space as it is
used for recreation and adds to the health and well being of the residence in Alsager.
This is a green area near to housing - alternatives are probably a car ride away for those folk - so
breaks some of your other strategies - so should get ruled out.
On the belt of natural wildlife area. Move out by don't build - integrate into the Salt Line area.
Open up the area.
Open space environment adjoining Wood Park and including footpath. High value.
Where will children play? Don't expect them to go all this way to Campus it’s a 1.5mile journey.
This is the only public open space on the east side of Alsager - alternative facilities on area A would
not compensate adequately.
As long as improved and better than equivalent are provided on the former MMU Campus.
Only if Alsager Town FC agree to move to say MMU Campus.
Dependent on alternative facilities.
I use Wood Park regularly, as do my family, no to building on it.
I and a lot of my friends and family use Wood Park.
If coupled with improvements to the Radway Estate.
These areas must be retained for current and future use.
Football pitches could be moved to existing MMU facilities.
Existing use must be kept.
Open countryside.
Mixed response.
Very little public open space.
One of your greenfield sites - where does the town play if it happens?
Better left where they are. Improved access and parking would be good though. Also public space
for barbeques etc.
Again greenfield site leading into the countryside.
Greenspaces for the people of Alsager.
Work has already begun by planting trees and next boxes to encourage wildlife to this area. This is
good open space for families.
This is greenfield.
You keep saying about conserving and enhancing green space this is a green space that is already
been enhanced and used by hundreds each day - dog walkers, children, football etc etc See: Objective 1 - to meet leisure needs of residents - Objective 6 - the network of greenspaces is
enhanced - Theme 4 - Create accessible and useable greenspaces. Why create more when you
already have them. - Theme 6 - conserve and enhance network of greenspaces, maintain and
improve access to open countryside. This is a greenfield site which means open space!
Page 83
These are playing areas for the people of Alsager - not for building.
Sports areas are needed to keep the youth occupied.
Left as football ground to be developed accordingly.
Conflicts with Theme 6.
Well used local green space.
This is a silly idea at a time you trying to expand housing.
Greenspace - last resort use.
Prefer to retain as a leisure and green space area.
Only if the facilities for sport are replaced elsewhere in a manner such as it is safe for children and
teenagers to walk and cycle.
The development of this site would require the relocation of the football club at Area A. As stated,
it is highly unlikely that Area A will come forward in the short term and as such, nor will Area C.
Therefore, alternative sources of land are required; Area H and in particular the site that is subject
of application no. 12/0893C, provides such a source. Furthermore, as with Area F, the loss of open
space provision in this part of Alsager would affect the local residents. The replacement space at
Area A would not be as accessible for local residents it would be over 2km from Area C by foot.
Playing fields would be affected. The National Planning Policy Framework calls for Local Plans to:
promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages such
as sports venues (para. 28). It requires a thorough assessment to be carried out of sports and
recreation facilities/ needs (paras . 73 & 171) and states: Existing open space, sports and
recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: â€¢ an
assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be
surplus to requirements or â€¢ the loss resulting from the proposed development would be
replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location or
â€¢ the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which
clearly outweigh the loss (para. 74).
The site is currently in the ownership of Cheshire East Council and in use for sports / recreation
uses. The suitability of this site is questionable and there are likely to be concerns raised by Sport
England for loss of playing fields for a residential use on this site. It is also understood that part of
the site is subject to a lease which is not due to expire until 2018. Furthermore site access is
limited to one point of access through an existing housing estate and therefore convoluted. The
suitability of the site for a residential use is questionable as is site deliverability.
Site C requires the relocation of the football ground which is reliant on the delivery of site A.
It is surprising that this football ground and pitches has been indicated as a potential residential
site. Sport England are increasingly protective of existing sports facilities and will be more so
following publication of the final version of NPPF. It is noted that the Council consider that there is
potential for replacement facilities at MMU, but this would have to be agreed and there is no
guarantee that it would be.
Having read the Draft Town Strategy for Alsager, I note that the Council wishes to 'improve
community facilities and spaces', 'create accessible and useable open spaces', 'conserve and
enhance the network of greenspaces through the town' and 'maintain and improve access to the
open countryside'. Then on the following page, I see that a 'preferred development site' is Alsager
Football Ground and pitches. If the Council is serious in its strategy aims surely it would not
consider building on this land. This area, known as Wood Park, is a vital bit of green open space on
the edge of a large estate and it fulfils all the aims previously mentioned! Take the football pitches
Page 84
to MMU, but please, please leave us this greenfield for children to play on, dogs to exercise on and
teenagers to sit on (they have to gather somewhere)!
Open space. Well I thought that was one of the important things in Alsager, obviously not for
Cheshire East.!!! Why would anyone want to build on the football ground I just don’t get it. Many
walkers and children use this park and it’s fair to say that without going into the town we have it
all... How many houses ??? come on get real, Alsager Highfields already is bursting with big class
sizes where on earth are the extra supposed to go ??? More suitable sites are the MMU, less
housing in that area and also 2 schools to cope with demand, of course Twyfords also seems to be
a better choice for building, its lack of use neither used for walking or anything else. So Cheshire
East why lose such a popular open space when there are more suitable options that are not
currently used for anything. I also understand the football club have just taken out a new lease of
21 years......
Having lived here I see the full extent that the young people use this field for sport and the older
for walking and picnics.
Page 85
Site D
Do you agree with site D (Cardway Cartons) as a potential area for future development?
•
•
Yes (84%); Disagree (16%)
Comments
Brownfield.
Entrance / egress at A50 is difficult and dangerous.
But no to large supermarket. Plenty nearby for car users.
I think this site should be available to Sainsbury’s.
Small space.
Unsure on what it is.
No building on greenfield. No houses. Redevelop into science / technology / business park. Attract
new employment for existing residents and bring more modern businesses.
I agree to the re-development of brownfield areas but disagree with any development of
greenfield sites.
Neither agree nor disagree. Full consideration needs to be given as to how to integrate this area
properly with the Linley/Talke road area.
Again another area which would be brightened up form a run-down look. Again care must be
taken not to utilise more of the green site than required.
No residential - open space only.
Agree.
Brownfield sites should always be the first option.
More employment instead of residential.
This should remain commercial and be used to attract manufacturing or small businesses.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Development Option D
Page 86
This space should be used solely for residential development.
Ideal site good road frontage minimum intrusion on peoples lives.
Definitely for employment usage for start ups/high tech businesses. Not retail as this would put
the town centre at risk.
Unlikely people will walk into town centre, therefore increased traffic / parking.
Brownfield development only should be permitted and access routes carefully planned.
The site seems to be located well for employment purposes if the frontage were to be
redeveloped for employment purposes and is located on a main road. A previous planning appeal
decision has been made on this site.
Should just be kept for employment use only. Why do we need all these new homes on each
proposed site?
Small manufacturing units will be a valuable boost to the local employment opportunities.
Too small an area to do retail development on, so housing OK here.
More employment in this area would be beneficial.
Not an important greenfield site for people or wildlife. Good use of this space.
Brownfield site would be preferable for development.
Any retail development being proposed as part of a mixed use scheme.
Commercial as people can walk to work.
This appears to be in line with current usage.
No need of new houses. Government guide lines are out of date and this would be contrary to the
village feel of Alsager Town.
There is a danger of a visual link between Church Lawton and Alsager forming a conurbation of
buildings.
Use this for industry.
Again limited use and definitely no access to Talke Road
BUT small industrial units only. No housing. Do not extend towards and including the allotments.
Industrial use only.
Some light employment.
Again brownfield site and on a main road - not like narrow Alsager roads.
Possible? Access.
Sensible use of brownfield site.
The Cardway Cartons site (Area D) is located immediately to the south of the Twyford Bathrooms
site, on the opposite side of the railway line. It is understood that the site is still operational as a
packaging manufacturers. There are no planning applications or permissions in relation to the
redevelopment of the site. Indeed, a planning application for the residential development of the
site was refused by the Council December 2008 and later dismissed at Appeal in December 2009.
Based on this previous refusal of planning permission and the lack of any more recent applications,
Page 87
it is considered likely that the redevelopment of the site will not be forthcoming.
This area includes land that is presently allocated as a protected area of open space under the LP.
This is not referred to in the ATS and is an important consideration; especially given Alsager has a
shortage of open space provision. Areas that do not perform such an important function should be
considered first, such as Area H.
The site is currently in active use for employment purposes and is constrained by the railway line
that severs the site from the Town Centre and therefore many of the services and facilities
available within the Town Centre. Site suitability for residential development is questionable and
concerns are raised regarding site deliverability in the short-medium term.
and other community benefits because of viability issues. A number of these sites would also
represent a loss of employment land which would make Alsager less sustainable as a settlement.
Page 88
Site J
Do you agree with site J (Land West of former MMU Campus) as a potential area for future
development?
•
•
Yes (56%); No (44%)
Comments
Not on greenfield site.
No need to develop housing as target will be met without it. Area is well used by walkers and a
green asset to be kept.
Green Belt.
Area J: If we want further sports facilities, we should not destroy the excellent facilities in Area A.
Within A we could create a new park, with playing fields within it, to provide for the "more open
spaces" required elsewhere. Area J would be just housing, around (and using) that park.
Link should be provided to Salt Line.
Again this would conflict with vision to 'maintain network of green spaces'.
Major supermarket needs building -either here or at Twyfords or at Radway. ...or cemetery
provision?
Think MMU site development crucial and ideas re this a priority.
Looks like it should be used but too many houses.
Do not touch greenfield sites.
No building on Green Belt! No houses! Add to facilities for the sports hub. Make it a world class
site!
Greenfield. Leave it as such.
Not an area I am used to but if it is part of the former MMU campus then hopefully it will not
impede on too much existing public access ways.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Development Option J
Page 89
Would be interested in viewing the Masterplan if progressed.
Why is this land in plan?
Area J should not be used, I think you will receive strong opposition to this proposal. Residents do
understand how attractive this would be to a developer; combining MMU and Area J would
reduce units costs.
Very strongly object this is one of the areas we should protect.
Possibly if additional housing is required above and beyond what can be delivered at MMU,
Twyford’s and Cardway Cartons.
Minimum infringement on green spaces by housing.
This area with footpath forms part of the character of Alsager and should stay green fields.
Needs better road to support.
If this opens up to Dunnocksfold Road I am against it as traffic up Close Lane and along
Dunnocksfold is too busy even now. We were promised that football pitches etc would remain
green areas.
Greenfield land with poor road access.
Definitely not - greenfield agricultural land, road access not adequate with Close Lane and Hassall
Road egress very poor.
Prefer to have leisure, swimming pool etc and housing.
Return the section of MMU to agriculture use.
Again I pose the question are these houses really required?
This space should be used solely for residential development
Already a developed area and under used. Not Green Belt or agricultural. Roads relatively quiet
and able to cope with a little more traffic
Can the infrastructure support this in addition to the campus itself.
Keep green.
Loss of agricultural land and greenfield site.
However, separated from village by sports hub.
The proposed development would create too large an estate. If the land becomes available cemetery provision would be better.
Road and Traffic problems will be worsened through such a development.
This site could complement the development at the MMU campus and can take access off
Dunnocksfold Road. This seems to be a logical and sustainable extension to the settlement area.
In stakeholder discussions, mention was made more than once of this area having potential for
cemetery provision.
Should remain as greenfield site and agricultural land, except in exceptional circumstances used as
sports facilities but not residential housing.
This would place significant traffic burden on already busy roads through residential areas.
I disagree - I don't think this land should be used for residential development.
Page 90
No need to expand onto greenfield land until all brownfield land is used properly and there is
some joined up thinking re retail provision.
As residential yes, but how much more sporting facilities do we need in one place. A children’s
play area for the residents would be more suitable.
Unacceptable to allow development to encroach on Green-Belt when there are other potential
sites in the local area that would not involve Green-Belt. Local infra-structure would not support
this amount of extra housing, ie road systems, drains and sewers. Concerns over access to Area J
as all the roads around it are minor and already struggle to cater for volume of traffic at certain
times of the day, Access to site from Dunnocksfield Road would be totally unsuitable as it is a
minor road with no pavement on one side.
Greenfield site.
Do not build on any greenfield site. Only build on brownfield sites!
I can see the sense in using this land as it is adjacent to the MMU site.
No greenfield site.
A house there would not appeal to me but.........
No to new housing development. Accessibility is very poor and we have a water shortage. New
development of houses would be in contradiction to the village feel of Alsager.
This is open land.
Alsager already has more than its share of low cost housing. The access from Close Lane is not
good. It is productive agricultural land. Exhaust brownfield sites first.
Greenfield and agricultural. Current MMU site is adequate for sports, housings etc. The access via
Close Lane is not good.
Access to Crewe Road from Close Lane and Hassall Road need improvement.
Infrastructure problems.
No to houses.
But not to include the current greenfield site to the north.
Essential Green Belt.
Open countryside.
No No No. Why build on fields when you don't have to.
Greenfield / agricultural and should stay as such.
This area was previously considered for housing and the idea was abandoned. In what way have
the considerations which influenced the decision then changed, particularly that now the MMU
site is available for extensive housing development?
Narrow roads and services already overloaded.
This is greenfield and should remain so.
Should develop northern area only. Not for cemetery use.
Don't agree with this.
There is sufficient brownfield sites without using J which is good farmland.
Page 91
No need for housing here. Water lying on surface and drains issue. Concrete / buildings will affect
run off and drainage adversely. Farming land!
Greenfield area.
No justification for further extension of the town into open countryside in this direction.
The ATS states that the development of this site would form an extension to Area A and if
progressed, a Masterplan would be prepared for both sites. As stated, Area A will not come
forward in the short term and as such, nor will Area J. Therefore, alternative sources of land are
required; Area H and in particular the site that is subject of application no. 12/0893C, provides
such a source. Allowing residential development as proposed in this submission will enhance the
council’s ability to protect existing employment land from non-employment development, thereby
giving certainty to long term protection of jobs. It is also worth noting that Area J is agricultural
land, and Google earth images suggest that the site remains in agricultural use. Whether it is BMV
land must therefore be considered and if it is it would not be sequentially preferable.
This area is within three separate ownerships and it would appear none of the sites are under the
control of either the University or a developer. Site deliverability is therefore an area of concern
that needs thorough examination. Furthermore, this site could only come forward once the
University Campus is fully developed; therefore completions are unlikely during the forthcoming
plan period.
This site is remote from the town centre and is intended to follow on from MMU development.
This is a mid/long term site, not in a sustainable location.
Page 92
Site E
Do you agree with site E (Fanny’s Croft) as a potential area for future development?
•
•
Yes (28%); No (72%)
Comments
Must retain access for dog walkers to open green spaces.
No need and important green area.
Green belt land
I strongly disagree with this proposal. The space at the moment is green space and I am strongly
opposed to building on such land.
Green Belt.
Keep greenfield.
We should not encroach over the railway line, which forms a natural border to the village and
whose crossings are already over-used. This eliminates areas E and G.
NO! Maintain Green Belt status.
I object to this as a large rural area of Alsager will be lost to development.
Excellent opportunity to utilise rail links as per vision strategy.
Possible site . . . but not a preferred area.
The area is used a lot by walkers, dog walkers, etc and has a lot of wildlife.
All these documented ideas seem sound.
Currently used as recreational - playing field.
Perhaps the only real country walking experience left in natural condition - preserve paths across
open country to Sprink and elsewhere. This area should be SACROSANT.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Development Option E
Page 93
No building on Green Belt.
I do not wish to see any Green Belt land developed for residential purposes.
I don't think that developing this piece of Green Belt land will significantly harm the Green Belt
principle, and using this land adjacent to the railway and the town could prove an attractive way of
proving the necessary housing for the town.
Neither agree nor disagree. Developing this as a residential area has some attractions though care
would have to be taken to limit its size and impact on the open access statements in the strategy.
Greenfield site - say no more. Yet another area where you will find a lot of hostility to any major
change
Retain as agricultural.
Large rural area.
Countryside.
As in J above you are spoiling the green areas that add to the desirable character of Alsager.
Too near a railway station - people won't buy it.
Greenfield - should be protected.
Do not expand the outer limits of Alsager.
Too much housing.
I understand that the fields surrounding Fanny's Croft are "set aside" common land and should not
be used for residential development.
Green Belt designation
A Valuable Green Space and should remain so.
This is Green Belt land and should absolutely not be used for any development whatsoever.
Access is poor onto an already busy road. The access is shared with farm and house owners up the
lane who would never approve house building. Draining very boggy land would be a "nightmare".
Green belt land can and should be used for farming. Existing access via Audley Road already
heavily congested (recent yellow lines introduced to try and curb this). Local sewers overflowing.
This is already a problem and has been for a long time. I have reported this to united utilities in
several occasions reporting raw sewage in the stream that runs alongside Fanny’s croft.
Definitely not, one of the few accessible greenfield areas, good for all people, walkers, dog
walkers, wildlife too is important, not much left anywhere. And this will further detract form the
village environment.
Green Belt. Extra traffic would be exiting on to Audley Road, which already has problems with
residents’ parked cars.
Traffic access? Close to town centre.
I feel that this area does not have the correct infrastructure to be developed for housing due to
the limited access points that this area has.
Conflicts with Objective 6 and Theme 6.
Page 94
Preservation of Green Belt should be a Council priority
There should be scope outside the Green Belt to accommodate the amount of development
needed in Alsager on potential allocations and infill development over the proposed Core Strategy
plan period. Incursion into important countryside gap separating residential parts of the town
from the R.O.F. complex.
This is Green Belt land, the development of which is mutually exclusive to the Vision for Alsager
stated earlier. This land cannot possibly be considered when there are already sufficient
Brownfield, greenfield and Agricultural alternatives already identified.
Kept as greenfield.
This is Green Belt land and should NOT be built on.
The road infrastructure around the Railway station area of the village is already a problem and an
increase in housing provision would add significantly to a worsening situation
Greenfield site should not be built on unless all brownfield areas are used up properly and even
then it may be considered better to protect greenfield land.
I think residential building close to the town and station would be beneficial to the town as a
whole
This land is Green Belt, and is a particularly nice part of Alsager. I moved from one end of town to
the other to live close to this area. It is used by a large % of dog walkers from Alsager, who travel
from all over the town to come to walk there.
I object in particular to the alternative proposals for both Fanny's Croft and Cedar Avenue. The
proposal to build up to 400 houses at Fanny's Croft would encroach on the Green Belt and access
to open spaces and countryside, as purported in Objective 6, Village Character. Access to and from
Audley Road to Fanny's Croft Car Park is already difficult, especially when the barriers are down at
the railway station. As trains come through on average every 15 minutes, it is difficult to see how
this could be improved, particularly as Audley Road is quite narrow, and further hindered by the
introduction of double yellow lines placed in such a way as to obscure the view up the road,
particularly by the Yeoman Pub. Drainage would also be a major problem
Intrusion into Green Belt land and on the 'wrong side' of the rail line. This will encourage future
development into the Green Belt and may put increased pressure on the railway level crossing and
the narrow roads adjacent to the site.
Greenfield site.
Unnecessary to build here if sites A - D are used. It is the wrong side of the level crossing so will
not have good access to Alsager. The other routes from Fanny's Croft are either the narrow
dangerous lane to the A500 or Talke road / Linley road which is also dangerous and has already
had traffic calming measures applied due to the amount of traffic. this is also a well used green
space used recreationally by walkers, cyclists and children. Ridiculous proposal.
No greenfield site.
Greenfield / Green Belt should be retained
Gateway to historic footpath network.
I know little about this location so do not wish to comment - voted no because it would be wrong
to be counted as a supporter
Page 95
Green belt land needs to be kept Green Belt.
Green Belt
Greenfield / Green Belt
Green Belt
Traffic flow problems on Audley Road from railway crossing and A500.
Railway crossing is a nightmare now. Traffic Audley Road is difficult with on street parking.
Value this green space!
This contradicts strategy - Theme 6 'maintain and improve access to open countryside'.
Keep as Green Belt land
No! Greenland we want!
400 homes too high.
Yes, but not 400 houses - too many.
Beautiful Green Belt. - Shocking.
Outrageous that this is listed.
Would be better used as open space.
Green Belt and greenfield and should stay as such.
Again this open space needed for families and wildlife that communities need.
This is greenfield.
Special Green Belt.
It's nice to keep open space in Alsager.
Greenspace used by a variety of residents for a variety of uses, development would have a
negative impact.
Supported. Whilst the site is currently in the Green Belt, the boundaries of the Green Belt were
defined decades ago and very imperfectly at that; there are local examples of the boundary
dissecting rear gardens without any more strategic reasons for reviewing the Green Belt boundary
in this part of Alsager, however.
The area is nearer to the town centre and to the railway station than any of the preferred sites for
residential development; ABCD and J. Its development for residential purposes would be
sustainable in that residents of the new development would have excellent accessibility to the
town centre and public transport facilities and therefore have less need for recourse to the use of
the private motor vehicle for many trips. This in turn would reduce the carbon footprint of the
development.
The site represents a logical direction in which the town could expend without exacerbating
existing traffic problems; there is a direct link from this quadrant of the town to the A500 and
hence the M6 without passing through the congested areas of Crewe Road and the town centre.
There would be no conflict with any surrounding land uses. The site is not known to be of special
ecological value and nor would its development be damaging to the landscape; much would be
shielded from view by the existing ribbon of built development along Audley Road.
As noted in the Town Strategy, a master-planning exercise could be undertaken to define the
boundaries of the proposed development area (those boundaries presumably accord with the
defensible physical features). The masterplan could ensure that the maximum community benefits
Page 96
is derived from the phased release of the land; the 'critical mass' of the site would surely allow for
securing allotments, burial space, public open space, better sport and education facilities, the
development of improved links with the countryside and the town centre, improved cycle routes
and better public transport interchanges to name some of the most important features.
Strongly agree.
Whilst Area E is in a sustainable location in terms of proximity to services and facilities, it is Green
Belt land. Other greenfield sites outside of the Green Belt, such as Area H should be given
sequential preference.
Have concerns that some of the proposed development areas in this draft strategy are in Green
Belt (parts of ‘E’ and ‘G’).
Whilst it is appreciated that this site has been considered as an alternative development area, it is
my client’s view that the consideration of this site is inappropriate given that it is within the
adopted Green Belt and the availability of alternative sites (outside of the Green Belt) and
therefore more suitable in planning policy terms. In addition site access is somewhat convoluted
to serve the level of development proposed. To gain satisfactory access existing houses on Audley
Road would require demolition or an alternate access further along Audley Road would be needed
which would further erode the Green Belt. It should be noted that Audley Road is already very
narrow and suffers from parked cars on both sides of the road. The site is within 6-7 separate
ownerships and therefore site delivery is questionable. This site should not be taken forward given
technical and policy constraints. It is my client’s view that Site E (or any sites within the Green Belt)
should not be considered appropriate alternative development areas given the intentions of NPPF
and the availability of other sustainable sites that are outside of the Green Belt.
We are pleased to see that land at Fanny's Croft has been identified as an alternative development
area for residential development. The site was recognised by the previous Congleton Borough
Local Plan Inspector, many years ago, as being:-".. . exceptionally well located in relation to the
railway station, is closer to the services and facilities of the town centre and is reasonably well
served by bus routes."The reasons for his observations are clear:•
Proximity to the town centre through walking and cycling .
•
Very close to Alsager railway station, with its bus interchange, on foot.
•
Very close to the modern Alsager Health Centre just to the north of the railway line.
•
Within convenient walking and cycling distance of St Gabriel's RC Primary School and
Excalibur Primary School.
•
Within convenient cycling distance of the employment areas of the town including Radway
Green.
•
Within walking and cycling distance of Alsager Secondary School on Hassall Road.
•
Convenient access to the countryside via adjoining footpaths.
Page 97
In locational terms taking into account sustainability, the reduced need to travel, easy access to
the open countryside and connectivity, the Fanny's Croft site is far better placed than any of the
other residential sites postulated in the Draft Town Strategy, most of which have issues to deal
with and which could delay development. By contrast the Fanny's Croft site is able to be
developed and provide dwellings within the 5-year period.
The Fanny's Croft site is, as you know, shown as a potential development site in the Strategic
Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) with reference numbers 2458, 3483 and 3484. Site
2458, Fanny's Croft, with a potential capacity of some 201 dwellings is shown as "Developable
Land" in the SHLAA. Sites 3483 and 3484 are shown in the SHLAA as "Not Developable". Together
they have a capacity of 253 dwellings, making 454 in total and which is roughly consistent with the
estimate of some 400 dwellings notionally ascribed to the site in the Draft Town Strategy. Raleigh
Hall's priority is in the development of 2458 but they have no objection of course to the inclusion
of the other two sites being identified falling within the Alternative Development Area. As a result,
we would please ask you to elevate the status of 3483 and 3484 to the "Developable" category in
the SHLAA.
The constraints indicated in the SHLAA have been addressed as per our recent submissions to the
SHLAA:- •
Flood Zone 1.
•
No necessity to divert the public footpath.
•
No evidence of contamination.
•
Ecology, Air Quality and Noise Assessments will be undertaken but not anticipated to be a
bar to development.
•
Flood risk, drainage and sewerage and services & utilities assessments have been
commissioned and copies of the reports will be sent to inform the SHLAA when
completed.
A report prepared by ADAS concluded:- .""The site in itself is not agriculturally viable, neither is it
on the best and most versatile land which would normally be protected from Development."The
bar to development at present is the Green Belt status of the site. For reasons mentioned earlier
in this Response, we do not believe that the 5 purposes of Green Belt postulated in PPG2 and
reiterated in the NPPF are compromised by removal of the site from Green Belt status . NPPF
advises that local Authorities should establish Green Belt boundaries in their local Plans, and the
opportunity arises therefore through Cheshire East Council's local Plan to review the Green Belt.
Page 98
Site F
Do you agree with site F (Cedar Avenue Playing Fields) as a potential area for future development?
•
•
Yes (17%); No (83%)
Comments
Leave playing fields alone.
I strongly disagree with this proposal as I do E, for the same reasons. I also think that this space is
well used for recreational activities and should remain so.
Again contrary to vision statement.
Keep greenfield.
Keep F as Green Belt; create a pedestrian and cycle path from Poppyfields past St Gabriels school
to the station.
Maintain open space.
I object about Cedar Avenue going for development. These playing fields are used by children and
adults almost everyday and it should kept this way. It would be sad to see these green areas lost in
Alsager.
Keep green fields / leisure opportunities.
Retain this area for leisure use.
Well used at present as recreational area.
Reluctant to remove well used central green space / playing field.
Preserve all playing fields, certainly until updated facilities become available. Maintaining cozy
local facilities makes for better societies, for hamlets within urban "villages"
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Development Option F
Page 99
No building on Green Belt. Taking away playing fields isn't going to help the young people that
you're trying to help.
These playing fields are an asset for Alsager and should not be developed for residential purposes.
Same comments as for Area C - need green spaces within residential areas.
Greenfield. Leave it as such. Suspect that like Wood Park this has far greater use than just playing
fields
On balance I cannot support this proposal, though it has some attraction. It is a valuable green
space and connects to the open country on the other side of the railway.
Greenfield site - no brainer. There are not too many open spaces in this area for children as is.
Better kept as greenfield site and not 25 new homes.
Retain as sports and leisure and open space.
Fields used daily by adults and children to walk / play - no playing fields close by as alternative.
"Playing Fields" - not for development.
Same comment as J and E above. Develop brownfield sites first, leave us our greenery!
Anti-social behaviour [edited by Admin].
Only if necessary.
Keep this open space.
Too close to railway line and sheltered housing, but possible if pitch transferred to MMU.
Recreational facilities must be part of the community.
Too much housing.
I believe these Playing Fields provide a useful sports outlet for folk living on this particular side of
the village. Having a single Sports Hub on the other side of the village would not be adequate.
The road infrastructure will not cope with additional housing. The land should be retained for
further allotment space and play area.
A valuable recreational and play area and should not be built on.
If anything this area should be developed as a new leisure facility
Building houses on Cedar Avenue playing fields represents a great loss of greenspace for local
residents. It runs counter to the Vision of a 'network of greenspaces throughout the town'.
As with Wood Park, further reduction of open public spaces is NOT a good idea.
This area is well used and is for the residents of the VILLAGE.
Again, green spaces, wonderful, accessible and enjoyable for all. Too many older residents live
here. Keep this too.
Keep for recreational activities.
Greenfield site.
Page 100
Removal of local green space.
To develop this area would spoil the charm of cedar avenue and also remove a much used site for
recreational purposes.
Dependent upon sports hub being achieved. Better use if hub achieved may be cemetery
provision.
Again, greenfield sites are an important priority for existing residents.
Loss of open space facilities without replacement would be a retrograde step.
In no way should this greatly under-appreciated stretch of vintage Alsager be considered for
consignment to the history books. Stroll, play, relax, tend your allotment, whatever - all within safe
earshot of trains bisecting the nearby woodlands - pleasures worth retaining for a good few
generations yet.
The playing fields should be part of the network of green spaces to be made available to residents
at strategic points around Alsager.
Kept as greenfield site.
We need MORE play areas not less. They need to be spread out around the town.
Taking away my sons football pitch.
If the MMU green space can be maintained for playing fields etc, ten this small pocket of land
would provide a housing opportunity that is close to the main artery.
Seems well used by children - leave it alone please!
then it may be considered better to protect greenfield land.
This area links up with the fields around Fanny's croft.
This is an existing and well used public open space. It provides a good access into the open
countryside and existing public footpaths. This is a facility that is essential to the nearby Guide and
Scout Halls. There is some scope for development on the small piece of unused land adjacent to
the open space (to the East).
Greenfield site.
Unnecessary to build here if sites A - D are used. This is a green space used by many people for
recreational use. It is in keeping with the vision of Alsager as a village with green spaces.
No Playing field!
Playing fields should be protected.
A fine place for football.
I know little about this location so do not wish to comment - voted no because it would be wrong
to be counted as a supporter.
These are open spaces already used and enjoyed by residents in Alsager. To build houses would be
in contradiction to the vision of having a town with a village feel and easy access to open spaces. It
would be unwise and a waste of money to build here.
Local playing fields.
Greenfield.
Page 101
Open space environment adjoining footpath has high value - scouts, guides and the elderly.
Let children play.
This is the only public open space on the south side of Alsager - alternative facilities on Area A
would not compensate adequately.
Improve the facilities at Cedar Avenue.
No my family play outside activities on these fields as do many other people we know.
No - retain open space this side of town.
This area must be retained for current and future use.
Disgraceful proposal. Much used essential to keep. - Shocking.
Outrageous that this is listed.
Retain public open space.
Should stay as playing fields.
We must consider open spaces for children.
This is greenfield.
This is greenfield and should remain so.
We need the playing fields as they are well used.
Used continually by footballers, children, joggers, guides, scouts, brownies, cubs and families.
Below water line.
This narrow avenue provides access to clinic, scout and guide huts. Allotments and a school
causing traffic build up on a permanent basis.
Greenspace used by a variety of residents for a variety of uses, development would have a
negative impact.
Greenfield area.
Useful community facility should be retained - little gain from just 25 houses.
Again, only if sport facilities are transferred to MMU site such that it is safe for children and adults
to walk and cycle.
The ATS states that this site could deliver around 25 new homes. This level of development does
not warrant the loss of a playing field. The Alsager Snapshot Report stated that Alsager has a lack
of outdoor sports provision and of children’s play provision. Therefore new open space needs to
be provided, and new developments will need to ensure that they are not adding to this lack of
open space provision. The open space needs to be safe and accessible as well as of a high quality
whether that be for general use, children's play space or as parks and gardens. Whilst there is
potential for replacement facilities on Area A, Area A is over 1km from Area F. The residents that
make use of Area F presently are unlikely to walk over 1km to make use of the provision at Area A.
The development of Area F will worsen Alsager’s open space provision.
Playing fields would be affected. The National Planning Policy Framework calls for Local Plans to:
promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages such
Page 102
as sports venues (para. 28). It requires a thorough assessment to be carried out of sports and
recreation facilities/ needs (paras . 73 & 171) and states: Existing open space, sports and
recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:
•
an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or
land to be surplus to requirements or
•
the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or
better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location or
•
the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which
clearly outweigh the loss (para. 74).
The site is currently allocated open space and is set out for a football pitch and is used by local
residents as general amenity space. The site forms a buffer between existing residential
development and the railway line. The suitability of the site is therefore questionable given its
current use and proximity to the railway line which would impact on the developable area. Any
likely delivery of housing from this site should be treated with caution.
Site F is also an existing playing field and would be difficult to bring forward given the need to
overcome PPG17 issues.
As with Site C, there is likely to be an issue here with Sport England about the effect on a sports
facility. The suggestion by the Council that the playing fields can be relocated at MMU is a matter
for agreement between the parties which mayor may not transpire.
Page 103
Site G
Do you agree with site G (Radway Green East) as a potential area for future development?
•
•
Yes (72%); No (28%)
Comments
Too far out of town.
Good site for industry well linked in to transport.
Again, I strongly disagree with using this land as it is currently green space.
We should not encroach over the railway line, which forms a natural border to the village and
whose crossings are already over-used. This eliminates areas E and G. There is no access to area G
other than through BAE Systems, a high security military area. Not practical.
NO! Maintain Green Belt status.
Proximity to motorway and near town.
Wouldn't mind businesses built.
May not work next to trains.
Would result in unemployment.
Leave greenfield sites alone.
No building on Green Belt. Use the existing brownfield sites to develop better science / business
parks, rather than building on new land. Get it right on the existing sites first.
This is Green Belt land and should be retained as such.
I don't think that developing this piece of Green Belt land will significantly harm the Green Belt
principle, and using this land adjacent to the railway and the town could prove an attractive way of
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Development Option G
Page 104
proving some employment opportunities within the town.
If I understand where this is, it is development on what is currently a greenfield on the southern
side of the railway. There should be plenty of land within the current BAe site for employment
developments. A bad suggestion.
No Issues as employment facilities already exist here.
Greenfield land - should be protected.
There is ample existing development which is unused within the existing Radway Green site which
could be redeveloped into a very successful business park.
Perfect for this purpose.
This is ok as it is outside the so called village.
Why not residential? Links residential to employment area.
Conflicts with Objective 6 and Theme 6.
Possible if access is carefully planned.
Any consideration of this site should rest on the outcome of the Employment Land Review and the
capacity of existing employment sites to more effectively use their site areas. Loss of Green Belt
should be resisted unless circumstances require it.
This is Green Belt land, the development of which is mutually exclusive to the Vision for Alsager
stated earlier. This land cannot possibly be considered when there are already sufficient
Brownfield, greenfield and Agricultural alternatives already identified.
This is Green Belt land and should NOT be built on.
Once again the small business employment opportunity would give a valuable pocket of
opportunity for local employment and easy access to the residential areas. This would need
minimal intrusion to create and would not deter from the visual amenity at it would be adjacent to
the Radway green factory space.
greenfield site should not be built on unless all brownfield areas are used up properly and even
then it may be considered better to protect greenfield land even if for employment. This is
agricultural land so should be preserved as such.
Completely unnecessary if MMU and Twfords are also being developed. there is also room for
improvement on the current Radway green site. Do we have any figures on the amount of
business space that is required in Alsager? given the high turn over of new businesses in the town
centre I suggest we concentrate on supporting the right businesses starting up in the current space
before spending money on new locations.
If greenfield site. No.
Greenfield / Green Belt area should be retained.
I know nothing about this location so do not wish to comment - voted no because it would be
wrong to be counted as a supporter.
Page 105
Contradicting the village feel of Alsager as set out in the vision. Building of a new housing
development here would create an urban sprawl. A good burial site if needs be.
Green Belt.
Greenfield / Green Belt.
Green Belt.
All sites join the B5077.
Wouldn't develop these sites - impact on BAE.
Essential Green Belt - Vandalism!
Greenfield - possibly Green Belt.
Agree in some aspects but is land suitable for purpose again Green Belt / greenfield.
Employment essential.
Could develop rail station here.
Close to transport links.
Sensible place to locate future employment development if a greenfield site needs to be taken
still.
Area G is Green Belt land which currently acts to separate Radway Green and Alsager. The areas
development would bring Radway Green and Alsager closer together, contrary to Green Belt
policy. It is also not in a sustainable location as it is a significant distance from Alsager; some 3.8km
from the centre were access to be taken from the employment land to the west. Access is another
potential constraint of significance. Whilst the area neighbours existing employment land to the
west it is not easily accessible. No mention of how the site would be accessed is provided in the
ATS; it appears as though either access would be taken through the employment land to the west
or a new bridge would need to be constructed over the railway line to provide access through Area
H. Neither option is considered likely. There is sure to be some form of ransom strip from the west
and any access through the employment development would require the reconfiguration of that
site. The cost of the erection of a bridge over the railway line may cause viability issues.
Have concerns that some of the proposed development areas in this draft strategy are in Green
Belt (parts of ‘E’ and ‘G’), the north eastern part of ‘E’ appears to in a flood plain.
Whilst this site is within the Green Belt, it is noted that it is proposed as an extension to the
existing BAE facility for an employment use. The site would form a suitable extension to an existing
employment site and would also continue to support local employment provision.
proposed employment and mixed-use sites could be developed for business parks/large scale
Centre. This approach has been supported by the recently published National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) which seeks to prioritise the development of office space in town centres. The
Authorities therefore consider that it would be appropriate for the employment sites to exclude
large-scale B1a office development, unless it could not be accommodated elsewhere, as this type
of development should be directed towards the town centres.
Page 106
Site H
Do you agree with site H (Radway Green North) as a potential area for future development?
•
•
Yes (63%); No (38%)
Comments
Too far out of town.
Danger site could become retail park.
I feel that this land should remain agricultural. I am opposed to building on this land.
Employment.
Why not extend to boundary of site F?
Links would make attractive proposition for commuters and industry.
Possible site . . . but not a preferred site.
Major supermarket needed -see previous comments.
May not work next to trains.
Leave greenfield sites alone (especially small ones.
No building on Green Belt. No houses!
It is hard to determine the actual boundaries of this proposal. Presumably it runs from Hall Drive
(the link to Lake View) down past the Mill and the Farm Shop, past the Plough as far as the Radway
Green traffic lights. But the stated area (3ha) does not seem to agree with this! Given its possible
area it maybe should be discussed in at least 2 parts - the eastern end as far as the Mill and the
western end around the Plough. I do not really see the view of using the area for employment
except for land next to Radway Green. Given the lack of clarity in the definition of this area it is
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Development Option H
Page 107
hard to either agree or disagree though I have sided with the latter.
Outskirts of town again would probably not be opposed but yet again any loss to greenfield site
must be limited.
Residential only.
Both areas adjacent to the main road.
Too large an area on green site. Perhaps develop part of site.
Employment and residential.
Residential - good access onto Crewe Road
This should be first choice after brownfield sites because it has excellent access to main road recommended at previous public inquiry.
Employment only please
Too close to the busy road junction. Too close to Ordnance Factory (Storage of energetic
materials)
Unattended land and in my opinion ripe for development. minimal if any intrusion on existing
homes. excellent road access
Pylons are not conducive to residential
Agricultural land.
Why not residential? Links residential to employment area and existing new shop (Spar) and large
capacity.
Conflicts with Objective 6 and Theme 6. Pylons would also raise objections.
Poor access to support additional residential development.
Any consideration of utilising this site for employment purposes would have to be subject to the
outcome of the Employment Land Review together with the capacity of existing employment sites
to more effectively use their areas.
Employment only.
Why has HSl put in planning application as this is an alternative employment/ residential area? Is
there still an exclusion zone for housing around BAE systems and how does this area. Likewise
should residential area be built under/close to electricity pylons?
This is currently fields and in my opinion it is also Green Belt land. It should be protected from
being built on and could be developed as a shared space for the community, i.e. a wildlife park due
to the amount of wild animals currently living there.
As this area runs a significant length from the Public house to the boundary of Alsager it would
seriously affect the visual amenity of this part of Alsager.
Strongly object: Crewe Road is already too busy. Also the land is Green Belt. Suggest we develop
all brownfield sites before bringing in beautiful rural land like this.
Page 108
Greenfield site.
Only the WESTERN THIRD to be developed. The eastern two thirds should remain greenfield.
Completely unnecessary if MMU and Twyford’s are also being developed. There is also room for
improvement on the current radway green site. Do we have any figures on the amount of business
space that is required in Alsager? given the high turn over of new businesses in the town centre I
suggest we concentrate on supporting the right businesses starting up in the current space before
spending money on new locations.
Only the WESTERN THIRD to be developed. The eastern two thirds should remain greenfield.
If greenfield site...no.
This area has the potential to accommodate a mixed use development. It is highly accessible and
elates well to the existing settlement/employment areas.
Why spread the village into a sprawl of development. The vision is to retain a 'village' feel to our
town.
I know nothing about this location so do not wish to comment - voted no because it would be
wrong to be counted as a supporter.
development here would create an urban sprawl. A good burial site if needs be. Create an open air
woodland adventure park and you have created an open space for recreation which attracts
visitors to the area and provides some jobs. Easy access for visitors using existing roads and
transport links.
Gives Alsager an open aspect when approaching from the West.
Long term possibly - if the pylons could come down and only part of the site was developed. It
could be OK.
Employment only.
Who would want to live next to pylons and Radway Business Park?
Very limited use.
Employment only not residential.
Wouldn't develop these sites - impact on BAE.
Open countryside.
Loss of greenfield area.
Would like some community growing space here; community gardens or market gardens.
Page 109
Employment essential.
Used by children, dog walkers continually.
Makes sense for transport links.
If infrastructure precedes development.
Close to transport links.
Visually disruptive and ecologically damaging.
The Draft Alsager Town Strategy (dATS) identifies Area H as an Alternative Development Area
(ADA) for employment and/or residential development. It is demonstrable that Area H is
sequentially preferable when compared against other ADA sites and indeed against Preferred
Development Sites and Areas (PDSA).
HSL has recently submitted an application for outline planning permission for the erection of up to
65No. dwellings at land off Crewe Road, Alsager (application no. 12/0893C). The submitted
location plan is attached to this Consultation Response for reference and it demonstrates that the
site forms part of Area H. The Planning Statement submitted for the application demonstrates why
the site should be developed now.
In short, there is a housing land supply shortage in Cheshire East and Alsager, greenfield land is
required to address this shortage and the application site represents the sequentially preferable
option. The site formed part of an allocation for housing in the 2000 deposit draft of the Local Plan
(LP) First Review and the allocation was supported by Alsager Town Council. The LP Inspector
ultimately decided that the site was not needed because the MMU Campus was ‘suitable for a
mixed use development incorporating a residential element and this should be capable of meeting
the housing needs of Alsager without the allocation of a large greenfield site’. However, the
Inspector also confirmed that the site should be allocated as a ‘reserve site’ for housing as it
‘scores marginally higher than other greenfield development options in Alsager’. The Inspector
found that the land off Crewe Road was the most sustainable greenfield site in Alsager and
therefore the sequentially preferable site on which to meet housing development not
accommodated within the urban area or the plan’s allocations. It is not considered that there has
been any significant change in circumstances on other sites that would lead to a different
conclusion now. The Inspector came to this conclusion because of ‘the advantages of the site in
terms of its location, its likely environmental impact and the possibility of securing the provision of
informal open space and a wildlife corridor’.
In accordance with Objective 1 of the ATS, the site is in a highly sustainable location, as shown in
Table 1. It is within easy walking/cycling distance of the range of services and facilities on offer in
the centre of Alsager. There is also a Spar to the west of the site that is within walking distance and
a farm shop to the south west. The local primary school can also be walked to easily. There are bus
stops outside the site and Alsager train station can be reached via bus, cycle or foot. The site is
also located within the urban fringe and the natural boundary to this part of Alsager; the ‘Alsager
Snapshot Report’ states at para. 2.40 that ‘the tributaries of the River Wheelock and River Wear
are natural boundaries to the town to the north and south’. The site is very well contained on all
sides, by the Brook, roads and residential development.
The following professional consultations have been undertaken for the current application, all of
which confirm that there will be no adverse environmental impact from the development of the
application site:
•
Agricultural Land Classification Report - the development proposals would not involve the
use of ‘best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land’ because the site comprises Grade
3b land with some Grade 4.
•
Badger Survey and Mitigation Strategy - the principle of the proposed development is
Page 110
feasible and acceptable in consideration of the presence of Badger, provided the guidance
detailed in the Report is implemented. -Ecological Survey and Assessment - Provided
recommendations and mitigation/compensation advice is followed, the proposals can be
achieved with appropriate consideration of the relevant wildlife legislation, statutory
guidance and best practice. The site also offers significant biodiversity enhancements and
management benefits.
•
Flood Risk Assessment - a review of the EA indicative flood mapping and other relevant
data indicates that the vast majority of the site is located outside any predefined area that
is deemed to be at risk from flooding by rivers or other surface water bodies.
•
Geo-environmental Site Assessment - the site is considered to represent a low to
moderate risk in terms of contaminated land liabilities.
•
Transport Assessment - the proposed development is acceptable in highway, traffic and
transportation terms.
•
Tree Survey - the site’s development will have no adverse impact on trees
•
Utilities Statement - identifies no significant concerns in providing the site with BT
services, water and sewer services, electricity and gas. Moreover, the development will
bring with it some significant benefits.
Again in accordance with Objective 1 of the ATS, the proposed development will incorporate the
provision of open space (the exact level of provision is to be agreed at reserved matters stage).
Congleton Borough Council’s Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study (2005) states that Alsager
has a deficiency in its open space, sports and recreation provision. The more recently published
Alsager Snapshot Report states the following: Research has shown that Alsager has a lack of
outdoor sports provision and of children’s play provision. Therefore new open space needs to be
provided, and new developments will need to ensure that they are not adding to this lack of open
space provision. The open space needs to be safe and accessible as well as of a high quality
whether that be for general use, children's play space or as parks and gardens. [para. 2.43] As
shown on the submitted indicative layout, the proposed open space provision is safe and
accessible. Such provision will be of specific benefit to the area given the existing open space
provision to the south of Swallow Drive is not well-located; it’s siting results in there being little
natural surveillance and as a result it is not well utilised. Furthermore, there is an obvious
requirement and desire to use part of the site’s proposed open space provision given local
residents are currently using the site as public open space, albeit without the land owners consent.
The proposals will also accord with Objective 6 of the ATS which seeks to ensure easy access to the
countryside and enhance the network of green spaces. It will also serve to meet another of
Alsager’s needs identified in the Alsager Snapshot Report; para 2.44 of the document states: Due
to the ageing population within Alsager there may also be a need to give greater consideration to
the types of open space provided. This could be an increased need for opportunities for older
people to sit down or for areas for leisurely walks or it may be that there is an increased demand
for allotments within the area. The proposals will result in the provision of a route suitable for
leisurely walks along the banks of the Brook. There is potential for benches to be provided along
the route which will connect with the existing footpaths to the east and west of the site. Extending
development into Area H will allow this rural walk to be extended, enhancing its function in linking
urban and rural areas and providing accessible passive recreation. The proposed route will run
alongside the existing copse which is to be enhanced as part of the development.
Page 111
Planting along the Brook’s banks will be provided and the ‘meadow’ proposed in the south eastern
corner will conserve and significantly enhance local biodiversity. The proposals will therefore
result in significant net gains for biodiversity at the site and in turn the surrounding area, in
compliance with PPS9.
In accordance with Objective 5 of the ATS, the development will result in improved connectivity
for existing residents as a result of the linking of footpaths as well as providing footway
connectivity to the existing isolated bus stop. A footway will run along the site frontage connecting
the bus stop to the existing footway north east of the site, and thus preventing pedestrians from
having to twice cross Crewe Road or walk along the grass verge (particularly undesirable during
unfavourable weather conditions). This improvement to highway safety is another significant
planning gain.
The application proposals currently under consideration by the LPA represent sustainable
development. It is also worth noting the forthcoming Interim Policy Statement on the Release of
Housing Land; the policy should only be given limited weight in the decision making process but it
does permit development adjacent to the settlement boundary on sites such as that off Crewe
Road, therefore demonstrating that the LPA considers the site as being appropriate for
development now. The site, together with the remainder of the land allocated in the LP First
Review, is sequentially preferable as recognised by the LP Inspector and accords with the Vision
for Alsager as set out in the ATS. The site should form an allocation for residential development in
the Alsager Town Strategy and is capable of providing some 150 dwellings.
Turning to the remainder of Area H (i.e. the land other than that allocated for housing in the LP
First Review), its development would reflect the established pattern of development along the
northern side of Crewe Road, adding to the clearly defined developed edge when approaching the
settlement of Alsager. The land is also contained by development the settlement of Alsager to the
north and east, and employment land to the south and also the railway, which provides a strategic
barrier to any southward extension of the urban area out of the Crewe Road corridor. Access
would be easily achievable from Crewe Road. Future occupiers of dwellings or employees would
be able to travel directly to the site via modes of transport other than the private motor vehicle; it
is within easy walking distance of the majority of the settlement of Alsager, Crewe Road is suitable
for cyclists and regular bus services already run along the road.
The site appears to be considerably constrained in terms of access, sustainability, flood risk and
pylons that cross the site. Whilst it is acknowledged that this site has been considered as a
potential alternative development site, it is considered that there are too many site constraints
that for this to be a credible alternative development site.
proposed employment and mixed-use sites could be developed for business parks/large scale
Centre. This approach has been supported by the recently published National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) which seeks to prioritise the development of office space in town centres. The
Authorities therefore consider that it would be appropriate for the employment sites to exclude
large-scale B1a office development, unless it could not be accommodated elsewhere, as this type
of development should be directed towards the town centres.
We support the inclusion of site H within the document although we suggest that this site should
be a mixed use development option rather than an alternative option and should be extended to
include the land to the east of the site up to the border with allotments adjacent to site F. The site
is located close to the town centre and lies outside the Green Belt unlike a number of other
alternative sites (G and E) that are promoted through the strategy. It also performs extremely well
Page 112
against the sustainability criteria contained in the Sustainability Appraisal, especially in terms of
the eastern part of the site. Four of the other sites identified in the strategy are brownfield
regeneration opportunities (A, B, D and J) which may be difficult to deliver and may not deliver
their full quota of affordable housing and other community benefits because of viability issues .A
number of these sites would also represent a loss of employment land which would make Alsager
less sustainable as a settlement. Site C requires the relocation of the football ground which is
reliant on the delivery of site A. Site F is also an existing playing field and would be difficult to bring
forward given the need to overcome PPG17 issues. For these reasons we believe that site H and
specifically the eastern part of site H should be included in the Town Strategy and should be
extended to include the site to the east of Hall Drive up to the allotments. It has no substantial
constraints and could deliver its full quota of affordable housing and community benefits and is
suitable, available and achievable.
This is not a particularly attractive site for housing adjacent to the railway, and pylons through it
and with a waterway through the site as well.
Page 113
Site I
Do you agree with site I (Rhodes Field) as a potential area for future development?
•
•
Yes (43%); No (57%)
Comments
Important green barrier, no need to develop as target can be reached without.
I feel this should remain agricultural.
We should not be building houses close to pylons.
Over intensification of houses will lead to a great strain on existing services and cause traffic
misery.
Area I is not practical, being too close to the quarry and under the high tension line.
Could possibly be extended further west.
Big impact on countryside.
Too far from town centre.
Never heard of it. Can't tell where it is on the plan and can't find it on local maps.
Leave greenfield sites - too late for regrets when they have gone.
No building on Green Belt. No houses!
Where exactly is this? If it is the area behind Sunnyside then I would think that this might be a
good candidate for new homes, particularly if it is planned together with area A. So a very guarded
"yes".
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q4 Development Option I
Page 114
Outskirts again but why do we need to lose more countryside?
Possibly.
Both areas adjacent to the main road.
Countryside.
Pylons. Productive farm land and footpath.
Only the half furthest from main road.
Only if really needed.
Unless pylons can be diverted but very close to quarry site.
Retained for community use.
Too many houses for the area.
Proximity to quarry and potential sand reserves.
This idea has been talked about for 30 years that I know of. The removal of the pylons makes this
project un-economical. Residents of Close Lane have fought this development for years due to
water table problems I believe!
Pylons are not conducive to residential.
Agricultural land.
A long way from town centre, therefore traffic.
Conflicts with Objective 6 and Theme 6. Pylons would also raise objections.
Greenfield site and poor access for additional housing.
Constraints relating to this site mean that it will be difficult to develop. Previous consideration of
this land has resulted in its rejection.
Pylons and encroaching on Green Belt and too near quarry and m6.
Attached to the main artery and easy access to the M6 positions this plot well for infill housing
between the Hotel and Close lane estate. As the land moves away from the artery rather than
parallel, the visual amenity impact is small.
Suggest we develop all brownfield sites before bringing in beautiful rural land like this.
As there are already shops in this area, it seems a good place to put houses if they are really
needed, and they would be close to the sporting facilities at area A.
Greenfield site.
Again seems unnecessary and is a local green space for walkers and cyclists.
Greenfield no.
Page 115
development here would create and urban sprawl. Infrastructure is not adequate. We have a
water shortage.
Only if there is not sufficient space on the brownfield sites for the houses needed.
Long term possibly - if the pylons could come down and only part of the site was developed. It
could be OK.
Town stretches out even further?
Keep greenspace!
Too far out - sprawl.
Pylons through the site - unsuitable.
How can houses be built so near to pylons? The cost of removal would be enormous.
Loss of greenfield area.
Makes sense for transport links.
Last resort use.
Extends the town further away from the town centre into the countryside.
Google Earth images suggest that a large portion of this Area remains in agricultural use. It may
therefore be BMV land and would not be sequentially preferable if it were.
The site is in multiple ownerships and its sustainability credentials are questionable given its
remote location from the Town Centre and the significant pylons that cross the site rendering
much of the site undevelopable. The site is not considered to be suitable or deliverable given its
location and site constraints.
Not a particularly attractive site on the edge of Alsager Urban Area, remote from the town centre,
local schools and other community facilities and remote from the railway station. This site is not
really a sustainable site for housing.
On the basis of our knowledge and understanding of the area, and supported by the technical
information we have prepared to date, we consider that land off Crewe Road is the most suitable
and sustainable location for new housing in Alsager. We are keen to embrace the Government's
'localism agenda' and consider there to be an opportunity to work with the Council and local
community to deliver real and lasting benefits for Alsager. Rhodes Field is the right place for
sustainable residential development. The immediate landscape is damaged and degraded and not
representative of the wider area. A strong high quality development solution which draws upon
the local character and contains a strong green infrastructure network on site will create a positive
gateway to the town from the south west which is lacking at present. Whilst not party to the
detailed reasoning as to the preferences of sites to the west, we consider that the quality of the
rural landscape is much higher and development beyond the former MMU Campus would be of
detriment to the towns setting and rural outlook.
Page 116
Q5 Development Principles
Area A: Former MMU Campus
Do you agree with the Development Principles (Area A) in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (74%); No (26%)
Comments
The leisure centre should be closed and sold to Alsager high school for re-development. The leisure
hub would be well needed. A children’s pool would be fab.
Needs to be providing facilities for local people.
It's a brownfield site which needs to be redeveloped if the village has to grow (not sure why it does
need to grow?)
I think this is a great idea and would hugely benefit people across the town.
Areas A and B should have no community venue: the Civic Centre finds it hard enough to make ends
meet without any competition.
Locate all recreational activities in one part of town, disadvantaging many and increasing road traffic
across the village in order to get there. With schools and leisure centre this part of the village would
become dangerously busy.
But would this also include Alsager Football Club facilities if they are to be relocated? It should.
No large supermarket.
Must include football facilities of Alsager FC.
Must include football pitch for Alsager Football Club.
As noted - good ideas.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q5 Dev Principles A
Page 117
Turn it into a sports hub for world class athletes to train, get nutrition advice, physio. use it for
sports research and training. Make it the best in the country. The facilities exist. The land exists for
the sports. Use it for its intended purposes. This would be a massive investment and employment
opportunity for local residents if it became sports 'park' (like a science or business park). For such a
great facility with unlimited potential, building houses on it just for the sake of it would be a disaster
for Alsager.
This development has been well thought out and I agree that a sports and leisure hub is a good idea.
However, I do not think this development should allow the closure or development of other
greenfield sites presently in use for sport and leisure.
Yes for the brownfield areas only.
In broad terms only. The main point seems to be that this area become the 'Sports and Leisure'
focus for Alsager. Though it is interesting to consider from which theme of the strategy this derives.
There is no stated provision for a Cultural Hub for example. I do not know exactly what the word
'Leisure' includes but assume it is limited to 'sporting' or mainly physical (e.g. dance) activities. If it is
such this may raise questions about the tennis club, the cricket club and the bowling clubs sited
elsewhere in Alsager. I hope there is no suggestion to move them! There is the question of the
existing Leisure Centre but it should be easy enough to connect that area with developments on the
old MMU site. Otherwise my comments under section 6A apply.
What about schooling?
Reinstate the MMU Swimming Pool. Do not over look properties in The Common with building work.
I would wish to see the community aspects achieved, could be great.
I am very concerned that this site must be watched carefully because of over development.
If needed for houses but surely a leisure hub would concentrate the location for sports activities in
one area - with little benefit to anyone. What about the cricket ground - will that be relocated too?
I agree generally, but no way near 300 houses! Cemetery and new football facilities are good ideas.
Agree re sports. Road network needed to support it.
No further developments required for sports and leisure.
MMU is OK, but not Area J.
Not if it includes Area J - otherwise OK.
Where is the money coming from for the sports facilities?
Return the outer area to farming area (J), Redevelopment of the redundant buildings would be
acceptable. - area (A).
Alsager already has a Leisure Centre. We don't needs a second one just across the road from the
first.
Providing it is not the sole sports area.
The priority for this site should be the provision of sports and leisure facilities, open space and
children's play space. Existing Brownfield site could be used for enhanced community facilities but
office space and retail outlets would be unnecessary. Owing to the location of this site, the proposal
to build yet more housing in this part of Alsager should not be pursued.
Mixed use is appropriate but the redevelopment awaits a timescale for closure of the MMU activity
on the site.
Page 118
One issue not addressed in the stakeholder sessions was that of incorporating and accommodating a
fully-operational football club as part of the overall 'sports hub' concept. Although only on a modest
rung of the nation football pyramid, Alsager Town has undoubted ambitions to thrive and prove
itself a fine ambassador for the area and the sport. The club has goals too of nurturing the game,
particularly among the young. Regular night-time floodlit activity, both by football club and from
other sporting users of the hub, will become a feature of this part of town - as it already was in its
university heyday. Clubs - of all sports - can at times attract considerable crowds - and on-site car
park provision should be afforded a proper level of priority.
Maintain the hockey, tennis courts and swimming pool facilities on this site.
This should be Leisure, educational and recreation only.
We do not object against the development of the campus, however highly object the development
of area 'J', this area consists of prime agricultural farmland, which is farmed and maintained well. It
also offers habitats for all wildlife, and the footpath enables locals to enjoy and appreciate the
countryside while maintaining a distance from the encroachment of urban surroundings. Further
more with the development of area J, there will be a greater risk of future developments across this
prime agricultural land, with no such restrictions as Green Belt to protect this countryside. Adding to
this, the development will also increase traffic volume along Dunnocksfold Road (which has already
got the reputation for a 'race track' come 'rat run'), with the proposed development of a further 150
houses this would have a severe effect on the safety on both young and old residents currently living
on/ near to Dunnocksfold Road.
I think that this area should retain all the existing sports pitches - insufficient information to say a
definite "yes" or "no".
This is brownfield site. No problem with a sports and leisure hub as there are facilities there it would
be sensible to keep and use for the benefit of all in the town. Seems a crime to smash down pucca
dance studios and swimming pool too. But I can not understand why this could not be used for retail
development of a decent sized supermarket, petrol station and attract back some of the lost
shoppers to Alsager. Large scale retail rather than small scale must be a priority for a town to thrive.
Not in its entirety - leave the sports clubs where they are if possible. Perhaps move the Leisure
Centre to MMU leaving the existing one will continued to be a resource for the school.
The road access will need to be reviewed because of the increased traffic loading (Not just
pedestrians and bicycles), particularly the junction at Hassall Road and Crewe Road. Area J: should
be included within this proposal from the outset. The proposal should also include cemetery
provision near to the western edge of the site to allow for future expansion when required.
Include quality retirement homes.
As I said earlier in this questionnaire, it would be good to have a hub for younger people - table
tennis, youth club, somewhere to show films, a cafe etc. A safe environment to 'hang out' other than
Milton Park.
Include quality retirement homes.
Retail development would be uneconomic.
Given the site's location out of centre, it is important that the scale of any new retail development is
restricted to a small scale local convenience offer and that its delivery is linked to the provision of
new housing from a phasing perspective i.e. the retail element cannot be brought forward until the
housing element of the scheme, or the vast majority of it is delivered - this would ensure that it is
Page 119
only delivered to meet the local demand arising from the increase in housing development as
opposed to drawing trade and footfall away from the town centre.
I think that the priority must be to bring this site into use as it is too big to go derelict. Perhaps some
ideas may have to be put on the back-burner to bring investment but we should be retaining some
of the fantastic sports facilities on that site.
This seems to be a wish list: The retention of existing buildings and facilities that can be reused
should have top priority - especially the sports and arts related facilities Do modern high tech
business want to be in small isolated units? - or possibly gathered together where comment service
facilities could be provided. If the aim is to encourage businesses to move here - have their views
been sought?
Area J to be excluded.
J should not be directly linked with MMU site. Cemetery provision could be a consideration - with
trees! Access could be a problem.
Agree generally except that housing provision is excessive.
We are small which is very attractive as a villagey town and must be maintained.
But with more housing
Alsager Town Council, Cheshire East have a one chance to provide residents with first class sporting
and civic opportunities.
I want greenspace local to where people live. I enjoy it and I don't want to play football on it.
No! We want greenspace in our communities by where we live and don't play football.
What happens to the leisure centre? Potential 6th form site - agree.
The north field of Area J is currently a greenfield site.
Suitable for houses.
Utilise existing facilities for the youth of the town.
But also retain swimming pool for residents use.
Less housing.
Convenience retail and pub/cafe really important in this area.
The MMU site should be for education and sport. All surrounding roads are grid locked everyday
with traffic.
The infrastructure is partially in place i.e. good size roads. If this area was developed it would still
have open space.
All green fields should be protected. Current houses should not be infringed.
Emphasis on retention of the excellent sports area at the site - not certain about the elderly housing.
Not to include for office or high tech development.
We do not need a new indoor sports facility.
I would like to see the sports field kept. The College was good for Alsager.
Leisure use only. Pitches were sited where large Hellyar Brook Estate is, no more building on sports
fields.
Page 120
Affordable - what does this mean houses are only affordable if people can afford them! In some
cases this will never be the case. Do you mean cheap?
See no justification for including J with this site. Prefer fewer houses and more community / sports
uses.
a) No mention made of swimming pool re 'sports and leisure hub' and effect of competition with
current pool and leisure centre. b) any facilities developed on MMU site must be safely accessible
for cyclists and pedestrians or else all talk of 'connectivity' is pointless - Dunnocksfold Road is a
nightmare for pedestrians car frequently going at 70mph!
The Draft Alsager Town Strategy allocates the Alsager Campus as ‘Preferred Development Area’. The
land is allocated as a ‘Mixed Use Development Option’. This reflects the proposed primary mix of
uses on the site which includes housing and a sports/leisure hub. The Strategy specifically refers to a
housing figure of 300 homes. It is also noted that a ‘Residential Development Option’ (i.e. Area J) lies
to the west and if that site comes forward a masterplan for both sites would be prepared.
MMU support the principle of their Alsager Campus being redeveloped. However, the University
consider that the broad range of uses included in the current planning application should be reduced
to focus on housing and a sports/leisure hub. In particular, it is considered that the site is not
appropriate for Class B1 ‘Office’ Use (i.e. on page 12 referred to as ‘small scale office development’
and ‘small scale high tech employment development’) and could accommodate additional housing;
this includes ‘extra care development providing housing for the older population’, as referred to on
page 12 of the Draft Strategy. It is considered that the references to ‘community facilities or a
community venue’, ‘social venue for post sport activity’ and ‘commercial sport and health related
facilities’ should be retained in the finalised Town Strategy; albeit acknowledging that they would be
ancillary uses, if they were included in a future scheme for the site.
The quantum of housing that could be accommodated on site will primarily depend upon the need
for sports and leisure facilities in Alsager, the stance taken by Sport England and the capacity of the
local highway network. These very important factors need to be assessed in detail, in conjunction
with Cheshire East Council and local organisations, prior to the re-submission of an outline planning
application for the site. Another very important factor that must be taken into consideration in the
site’s future use is the maintenance/upkeep costs of the sport and leisure facilities. Viability will be
taken into account in any future proposals and will impact upon the mix and quantum of uses
proposed. It is considered that the Alsager Campus could potentially deliver 300-500 dwellings,
reducing the demand for greenfield housing releases elsewhere in Alsager; including the draft
allocated housing site Area J.
On this basis, it is considered that the reference to a masterplan for Areas A & J together should be
deleted. It is also considered that reference to the Existing Development Brief (i.e. produced in
October 2008 by Congleton Borough Council) is now out of date and should be deleted. In particular,
the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework has significantly changed the policy
guidance contained within the document. MMU support the principle of their Alsager Campus being
redeveloped and will work with Cheshire East Council to bring forward the site. This will involve
creating a new housing and a sports/leisure hub for Alsager. The details of such a proposal are yet to
be agreed but will reflect the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainability.
Ultimately, MMU wish to leave a legacy that they can be proud of at their Alsager Campus.
Page 121
Area B: Twyfords
Do you agree with the Development Principles (Area B) in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (81%); No (19%)
Comments
Too many houses. Do agree with improving the pathway from talk road to the proposed site.
Yes but lifting the size restriction on the store, ensuring any community venue is accessible to the
wider community by being towards the north west corner. The pedestrian links to Talke Road for
schooling in particular and to the station need improving. There is scope to upgrade the path running
from the station on the north side of the line.
It's a brown-field site which needs to be redeveloped if the village has to grow (not sure why it does
need to grow?).
This seems sensible.
A Sainsbury's supermarket will be very good for Alsager.
Areas A and B should have no community venue: the Civic Centre finds it hard enough to make ends
meet without any competition. Area B should have cycle access, not just pedestrian access, to Alsager
Station and to the town centre. It should also have cycle access to the Barratt Estate, to encourage
alternatives to use of cars. Area B should favour industrial use (including heavy) rather than
residential: we need the local employment. Area B needs no pub: there is one on the other side of
Lawton lights. We have enough pubs in Alsager. Both the Area B description and 7.3 suggest that the
Sainsbury planning application should be rejected. I agree.
1. Retail usage could be permitted.
2. I question the need for cemetery provision, especially in the Green Belt portion
Except for retail use, access to remain via Hooze Hollow, not from A50.
No large supermarket.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q5 Dev Principles B Page 122
Major supermarket is desperately needed to bring back overwhelming majority of residents who shop
elsewhere. Younger population of town (& many older residents) are very heavily in favour of this in
my conversations. Why does the council completely ignore the views of the majority & keep finding
ways of getting the opinions of a small minority? This is not about keeping 10% here, it's about
bringing back the 90% into the community who go elsewhere & creating some sort of community feel
-because people are actually here, not just buildings!
Sound as stated and documented here in.
Not supermarket.
Sainsbury’s should have this site for supermarket and petrol station.
Peripheral brown field site
No houses, no building on greenbelt. Turn it into a science / business park to attract investment and
new modern businesses to the area. Get away from traditional jobs.
Schooling issues?
This site has the advantage of main road access.
Again, only if it is deemed essential (and it isn't) that we need additional houses in the village.
Excellent thinking, all round!
No to supermarket.
We certainly need Sainsbury’s Petrol Station. At present we travel to Newcastle for cheaper petrol.
the Tesco one is much dearer.
Why is Sainsbury’s required - will it help in the development of Alsager as a village.
Sainsburys development an excellent first step, petrol filling station badly needed.
Except that the number of dwellings should be restricted to 300 to allow continued use of the
warehouse facility for its current or alternative use.
Would question need for a pub here.
But a primary school is required see comment at 4b above.
If access to this site can be well-designed this is more suitable for the proposed mixed use.
Careful management of the future mix of uses on the site will be required to ensure that the mixed
use designation is retained into the future.
Improve links to the town centre
This is brownfield site, but I can not understand why this could not be used for retail development of a
decent sized supermarket, petrol station and attract back some of the lost shoppers to Alsager. Large
scale retail rather than small scale must be a priority for a town to thrive. The proposed Sainsbury's
would be a start in a good direction for Alsager. I would make the supermarket even bigger though
(Nantwich size) so that it drew people into Alsager and then they might also use the facilities in the
town centre. Alsager needs large scale retail development to thrive not tiny small scale ones.
But should include proposed Sainsbury store and petrol station.
Not in its entirety - I doubt that the new cemetery can be developed in time for the Christ Church
overflow.
This proposal indicates a large number of additional options. If these options are not balanced there is
a danger that this area could develop into a separate community rather than a development of the
town. The provision of a community venue may not be necessary if a venue is provided adjacent to
Area C (Alsager Football Ground). The proposed area for the cemetery provision does not seem
adequate and will have no scope for future expansion.
No need for large super market
Agree with this as it is within a brown field area
I would support a supermarket on this area if it is big enough to do my weekly shop in. another
'Sainsbury’s local ' type store would not stop me driving to Kidsgrove, Crewe or Hanley to do my
weekly shop.
Archaeological investigation first. Retail outlet in what context. Not economically viable
Similar comments to the MMU site - Given the site's location out of centre, it would be clearly
inappropriate for any large scale retail development which would undoubtedly have a significant
adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. Whilst there may be some justification
for a local needs retail offer to meet demands arising from new housing here it is critical that the scale
of any new retail development is restricted to a small scale local convenience offer (as per the
recommended threshold in the supporting text) and that its delivery is linked to the provision of new
housing and other employment uses from a phasing perspective i.e. the retail element cannot be
brought forward until the housing element of the scheme, or the vast majority of it is delivered - this
would ensure that it is only delivered to meet the local demand arising from the increase in housing
development as opposed to drawing trade and footfall away from the town centre. We would also
comment that any redevelopment proposals here should be for a comprehensive redevelopment
scheme as opposed to piecemeal applications for individual parts of the site and that as part of any
proposals a full masterplan for the whole site would be required together with a phasing plan to show
how the scheme will be delivered in the future.
I particularly like the idea of Extra Care facility as there is a growing demand for this type of
development, close to town centres.
I think that the original brief should be adhered to which did not envisage large retail use
This is an ideal site for another supermarket to give competition to the only one in the town, and to
provide facilities for everyone who already goes elsewhere A petrol station here would add to Alsager
facilities
Careful planning to avoid visual link with surrounding communities.
Careful development to keep a green boundary on Linley Lane and Lawton Road.
Partly
We are small which is very attractive as a villagey town and must be maintained.
Limited housing only. Value green space!
Housing. No large our of town supermarket.
Housing only, no to big supermarkets.
Too many houses unless roads are improved, but generally agree. No to Sainsburys. Impact on Talke
Road.
Is there the danger of developing two town centres. Remember Twyfords is not in the hub of the
town?
Another supermarket would detract from town centre. Develop as industrial area.
Suitable for some houses.
In principal yes. But cemetery use way out of town for some but not inaccessible.
More job opportunity.
Convenience retail important - not an out of town supermarket!
This site is nearer a main road.
This area has always been used for employment. The area would be enhanced by residential, still have
open space.
Include also supermarket development.
An ideal brownfield site with links by road to outskirts. Cycle / walkways to town centre.
Would prefer to see a science / business park use here rather than residential.
As the Council is aware, a full planning application for a new Sainsbury's store on part of the former
Twyfords Bathrooms site was submitted on 5th March 2012. The application is currently being
considered by the Council (ref. 12/0800C). The SSL store would provide in the order of 150 jobs.
The remainder of the former Twyford Bathrooms site is subject to an outline application for
residential development comprising up to 435 dwellings. This application is also currently being
considered by the Council (11/4109C).
These two applications, together with the retained Twyford Bathrooms' Distribution Centre and
offices, for a comprehensive masterplan for the mixed use redevelopment of the site. As such
Sainsbury's support the identification of the site as a Preferred Development Area for mixed use
development.
The Town Strategy considers that the site is appropriate for a range of uses including residential,
employment and amenity open space as well as small-scale local retail development (200-300sqm).
This quantum of development appears to reflect the former masterplan for the sites, and not the
current applications which propose a much larger element of retail floorspace (4,000 sqm (gross)).
As such, the vision outline in the Town Strategy does not reflect the most up-to-date position. To
ensure that the emerging Local Plan is accurate and up to date, the reference to the amount of retail
permitted in the Preferred Development Area should be increased to 4,000 sqm (gross). In doing so
we would emphasise that the current proposals have been developed in full consultation with Officers
and the local community. The local community have vocally supported the proposals for a Sainsbury's
store on the site. Sainsbury's considers the Twyford Bathroom site to be more immediately deliverable
than Areas A, C, J, E, F, H and I, given the current planning applications which are being considered by
the Council and the commitment of Sainsbury's and the landowner to bring forward the sites
redevelopment. As such, we support its designation as a Preferred Development Site.
It should be noted that existing woodland on the Twyford’s site is not ‘protected’, as stated in the TS,
although it is of landscape and wildlife value and should be retained as part of any redevelopment of
this site.
Alsager has two large brownfield areas (MMU and Twyfords) surely that is enough land to provide the
housing quota. (We totally do not need another large supermarket). Use these areas and leave
Area C: Town Centre
Do you agree with the Development Principles (Area C) in the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
•
•
Yes (81%); No (19%)
Comments
Consider pedestrianisation of the town centre, to prevent rat-running, and develop area O with a
variety of outlets. Opening up Milton Park is vital too.
To lose the village's community car park to commercial developments would kill off any hope the
village has of surviving the onslaught of supermarkets and out-of-town retail developments.
Focus on development of evening economy in town centre.
I know that the council (at my suggestion) looked at buying gardens behind the shops on Crewe
Road, bordering the Mere. Can you look again at doing so, to increase access to the Mere? Para.
7.4 I agree, but the current Co-Op proposal faces the car park instead of facing the town. Please
turn it to face the town. Para. 7.6 It is good to keep the parking area that side of the lights. It
reduces the traffic burden and congestion at the lights. The Town Yard could be re-developed
and re-located to the tip. Para. 7.8 There are already too many restaurants and cafes in the area,
witness their rates of bankruptcy. Increased housing may make current provision viable; new
provision would not make good business sense.
1. No explanation is given as to the type of development that would be enabled that is not
already acceptable.
2. Shops to the west of the traffic lights should be regarded as "Principle Shopping Area".
Insert 'free' car parking as a commitment to supporting local businesses and persuade people to
shop local.
The town centre is a bit of a mess with unattractive buildings and facilities. Something needs to
be done to give people a reason to be there & something to be proud of. Tweaks aren't enough.
Civic, Poole-Alcock/Spend & Save etc look a mess & need new buildings.
Very sound.
Draft AlsagerTown Strategy Consultation Report: Q5 Dev Principles C
Page 127
Care has to be taken to preserve the best and to encourage the small village type businesses.
Community Information office should be restored and the little charmers be left for people to
enjoy. It seems sad that so many activities seem to be pursued in the main village pub, the
central religious space or local cafes, but the it may help sustain these businesses.
7.6 Town Yard, this development is urgent. The Yard should be demolished and the area
developed as a part of Milton Park. As for Milton Park itself, I suggest that the footpaths should
be completed and an additional entrance should be made at the Station Road/ Brookhouse Road
corner of the Park. This would open the Park and would encourage young people not to damage
the railings in that corner in order to gain entry.
Principle statements. Agree Area K already ruined Area L is main shopping area anyway
redevelopment will cause what little retail diversity that does exist to relocate. Think again. Area
M. There is no substance in the statements to agree to. Area N. There is no substance in the
statements to agree to. Area O. A few years back when Alsager supported a substantial student
population this would have been an appropriate proposal. Now it will simply move focus from
the town centre.
Developing and supporting vitality and pride in the centre is a very important idea for the future
of Alsager. It will require much thought and application, but the stated principles are a good
start. . Connectivity provision with the rest of Alsager needs to be properly provided for in the
Town Centre. . Developing the community facilities in the centre is important. . I do not support
the suggestion that Area O should be primarily developed for restaurants/cafes and to become
an 'evening economy'. The current mixed situation is about right. . Otherwise my comments
under Theme 2 in section 5 apply.
My main concern here is yet more restaurants and cafes when some recent openings have only
lasted a few months.
Retain free car parking to attract visitors.
Mixed feelings the local Council have expressed views which are outdated.
I agree generally, but the excellent library must be maintained.
Largely agree but enhance car parking to cater for all the extra residents.
Too bland, too much verbage. Need to be clear and concise with detailed development
proposals.
Concern at the apparent loss of parking in area (K).
Continued improvements of the town centre to keep it a vibrant and welcoming to residents and
visitors alike is vital.
Parking required in Area O.
The proposals here seem reasonable even if it is not clear how they will be delivered. The
development of the Co-op - be;lated though it is - should not, however, lead to a negative
response to the sesnible Sainsbury's proposal on the edge of town. Experience has shown that
the Co-Op needs to face competition if the standards of provision are to meet the needs of the
community.
This is an important facet of the proposals for the Town Strategy and the town centre contributes
to the character of the town and provides a good range of facilities. Care needs to be exercised to
ensure that sites are made available to improve the retail offer and continue its vibrancy to
combat potential out of centre development that would threaten its future prosperity and focus.
Restoring relevant policy maps to showing business along Crewe Road between Bank Corner and
Page 128
St Mary's as being part of the town's retail community. Whoever took those off did the town a
great disservice.
how does Sainsbury development at Twyfords tie in with page 14 ''focus on retail development
within the town centre' ensure free car parking within town centre to encourage visitors from
out of town
Pedestrianised area on Lawton Road required by diverting road to rear of Bank Corner.
In general yes to this, however there are issues with some of the wording regarding opening up
the access to the Mere which requires much more clarity, as the local shops in this area and
housing are part of the valuable character as you enter the town. Also there are some concerns
regarding the meaning of opening up the links between Milton gardens and the town, again this
needs more clarity to understand what this would mean and to protect small local shop frontage.
Very unambitious and too dependent on shops staying as shops. We will need fewer as time goes
on, due to e-commerce. So there should be a far greater allowance for shops turning back to
residential.
Retail development does not need to be purely developed and restricted to town centre. Large
scale retail development somewhere in Alsager would attract other units to the town. Success
attracts success and then the empty high street failing units would be full. It is not good to have
empty retail units- you have to ask why are they empty? Lots of younger families in Alsager
simply shop elsewhere as the current retail facilities are inadequate for the modern family
wanting to do major shops for food, stationary, petrol and affordable clothes. It there were these
faculties in Alsager then a couple of extra modern Bank corner style cafe venues and affordable
restaurants would also thrive as people would be shopping more locally within Alsager and would
also want to socialise here more. The town centre needs to feel like a thriving small town centre
does and not strangled and kept as a "village" so it never thrives. Opening up the Mere would be
very good as it is a beautiful place but completely inaccessible to locals- was there not an ancient
right of way around it? It could be opened up to create a beauty spot.
If the toilet facilities are going to be continued, it would be good to have them closer to the town
centre.
Concentrating completely on the town centre to the detriment of Crewe Road west of the chip
shop (the cafe quarter)?
Much more diversity is needed.
The strategy for the town centre needs to include the development of a plan for increased traffic
on the B5077 as this will have an increasing impact on the centre. Development of Area M: will
need careful consideration to prevent future problems. The site is adjacent to a skateboard park
and has been adopted by the youth as theirs, as can be seen by the urban graffiti on the walls of
the current property. Consideration should be given at the outset on an approach that will
include the youth in the development of the area. The improvement to the entrance to the park
(Area N) to open up the park is long overdue.
But no more fast food outlets.
Agree. Particularly the' improve the frontages to the shops'. Alsager is not a pretty town and
needs help to make it look inviting and distinctive. Car parking must remain free.
But no more fast food outlets.
\this should be the priority development. Get the town looking good and attractive and the rest
Page 129
will follow
Recommend that paragraph 7.4 be re-worded to make reference to the consented scheme for
the new Co-operative foodstore and associated retail units and town square acting as the anchor
for the town centre and that opportunities for making use of the new public square will be
explored as part of the Plan.
Improved links to different parts of the town. Clear signage to different shopping / eating area.
Clearly signposted car park.
consider to be appropriate for development in Alsager. Any retail development in Alsager should
be of a level which meets local needs and does not result in the retail offer in Alsager being in
direct completion with the retail offer in Crewe town centre.
Providing the car parking is kept free.
More access to the Mere.
Alsager attracts because its quiet and serene - that can not be taken over by noise and bustle.
Keep village appeal, no more pubs, clubs, coffee bars, bistros etc.
Just the issue of maintaining the village but proposing (to me) dramatic change of emphasis.
More investment to build up character is great.
More investment is needed to build up the village’s character and get it so it has got back its
charm.
This is part of our town which requires immediate attention now. Is there the danger of
developing two town centres? Remember Twyfords is not in the hub of the town?
Keep housing away from Town Yard.
Question - will the high speed train proposal take place? If so, all the debate must be changed.
But areas shown are built on areas - redevelopment seems difficult to me.
Why were all the trees cut down it is disgraceful - I am not at all sure you can turn around the
town centre.
Too much money spent on town centre.
Would enhance the town.
We already have enough eating places in Alsager.
The object of the exercise above all else to get people in to the town.
Redevelopment of area L would result in unaffordable high rents and empty premises. Area N is
attractive as it is.
The town is now dangerous; I would not want my grandchildren there at night.
Again - what of connections to the other sheltered housing. It is neglected and isolated area.
Once the chemist closed there at the bottom of town - some became largely house bound.
Very much support this - the strategy will enhance the role of the town centre at the heart of the
community.
As for developing Alsager and making it a thriving town, how many take-aways do we need, all
Page 130
the extra litter created by these outlets, another chip shop right opposite the other one, who
gave that consent, and yet another charity shop !!!!!!
Page 131
Q7 Infrastructure Priorities
Do you agree with the infrastructure priorities for Alsager?
What level of priority should be given to the infrastructure priorities identified in the draft Alsager
Town Strategy?
Draft AlsagerTown Strategy Consultation Report: Q6 Infrastructure
Page 132
Draft AlsagerTown Strategy Consultation Report: Q6 Infrastructure
Page 133
Q8 Other Infrastructure Priorities
Do you consider there to be any other infrastructure priorities not listed here?
Comments
The empty shops need to be filled.
The aspect of housing that is under-provided as compared with demand is the likes of Dennis Round
Court, with a range of levels of sheltered provision being provided within a single development with
an on-site warden. Current play areas are all focused on the under-8s. Can we have playgrounds
suitably challenging for older children?
1. Hi-speed broadband
2.Affordable housing is definitely required, but unsure about necessity of additional "specialist need
homes"
3. Impossible to judge priority of Education without knowledge of demographic profile
4. Footpaths, footways and bridleways are just as important as cycleways
Maintain free parking (at least for local Council Tax payers).
Free car parking.
Major supermarket.
Elimination of pot holes in roads and broken slabs in pavements. Preventing giant vans parking every
night and all weekend on narrow estate roads, making for obstacles for all, but in particular the
partially sighted, the wheelchair and scooter users. Even dog walkers are forced out onto roads
when vehicles park on pavements. Provide space for the secure parking for the monster "white
vans".
As a dog owner I welcome the provision of poop bins. But find the hap-hazard distribution very
frustrating. Why are there not poop and Litter bins at every major road junction and public space.
I noted under objective 4 the problem with the word 'infrastructure'. This problem recurs here. . It is
not at all clear that a 'Sports Hub' is part of the infrastructure anymore than would be a supermarket
or a shopping mall. As noted under Objective 4, surely the term refers to the necessary fundamental
systems/works necessary for the carrying out of activities of the community. I have used this view in
my answers to question 6. . Other infrastructure priorities surely include: . State of the art digital
connectivity, private transport support (car parking, accessibility, maybe electric car charging points
(if the technology takes off)), pedestrian accessibility, safe and appropriate walkways etc., public
toilets, refuse disposal and recycling facilities, health care and accessibility, policing and safety,
cleaning and maintenance of all public areas, information provision (ranging from simple signage, to
community information, to transport information and so on, enabled by new technology) .... .
A general make-up/faceover of existing town facilities would go a great way of improving the
outlook without the need for any more major building.
Retain greenfield space.
CCTV Coverage to be provided for area in front of new Co-op Store.
Injecting some money into Alsager School might be a good idea before they go bankrupt. It used to
be a very good school which attracted families into the area but the popularity is dwindling due to
vastly insufficient financial resources to maintain that attraction. I nothing is done about this then all
the money in the world spent on the area will be pointless if no families are interested in living here.
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q8 Other Infrastructure
Page 134
More defined signage for the centre and the West end, including car parks, station, walks, parks,
facilities etc. Greater marketing of the closeness and convenience of the station to the town.
Keep car parking free in the town centre.
Carbon reduction environmental conditions should be included.
The existing state of the roads in Alsager is very poor with unrepaired pot holes very prevalent. The
issue of car transport needs to be a very significant consideration in any further development of the
proposals in this Plan. If the Council does not have the resources available to address existing issues,
it must expect a level of scepticism about many of the proposals contained in the Plan which could
produce the worst of all possible worlds for existing and new residents: more housing = more cars
and traffic = more congestion and pollution - and there is no significant improvement in the
infrastructure or in community amenities to support any such development.
Clean, safe, informative passenger shelterage etc at bus stops and at the rail station
Ensure that parks and open gardens/ walks are available for each area of Alsager(The Cranberry
Estate, The Excalibur Estate, The Pikemere Estate, The Former Highfields Estate.)
The drainage system along Audley Road is a shared sewerage/surface water system. During
downpours there is localised flooding with raw sewerage discharged into the storm drainage system
that exits into the open drainage channels along Fanny's Croft, causing environmental concerns to
residents.
Large scale retail development. Alsager will not thrive until there is a large scale supermarket, petrol
station and other shops e.g. decent stationary shop and affordable clothes shops. Once the food
shopping is help within Alsager, then other money will be spent in Alsager and the leakage will
decrease. Alsager deserves to be a thriving town. It does not deserve to be restricted and strangled
as a village when its population is that of a town. The facilities of Alsager today need to reflect the
population size, age profile and needs. There would need to be an increase in primary school
provision if extra houses were built as well as growth of large scale retail provision. Brownfield sites
should be developed before any greenfield or agricultural land and there needs to be urgent
graveyard provision to avert a crisis.
I really believe that building on 'green land' is a very bad idea. Redeveloping disused sites makes
perfect sense though. I do not believe we need to build more affordable housing in Alsager, There
are already a large number on the old Radway estate, and a large number in nearby Crewe,
Kidsgrove, Talke, and Congleton.
Should try to make provision for start up businesses as currently only Radway provides the only
facility.
Campaign to have the B5077 (Lawton lights to Crewe) and the Audley Road (to A500) to be raised to
A-road standards.
SCHOOLS: adequate schools are ESSENTIAL - to keep Alsager thriving and reduce traffic. (It's unclear
what 'Education' in the list above means. If it means 'schools' then why not say so; otherwise, say
what it means.)
get the utility infrastructure sorted before the social infrastructure.
7.3 It is vital that to implement the vision for Alsager, that large scale retail development does not
take place on edge of town or out of town areas. To maintain and develop the vibrancy of the town
centre we must improve the offering of town centre shops as identified in the shoppers surveys;
affordable clothing, particularly for men and children, enhanced visibly and increased number (and
variety) of stalls in the weekly market, events such as cinema (in the civic centre / Milton Park?)
Page 135
would all help to retain / attract customers into the town for the development of the daytime and
evening economy.
Lots of green dog walking / people walking places.
Green space for dog walking / quiet spaces.
Prioritise proper maintenance of Alsager roads and pavements.
More footpaths where possible.
Improved drainage surface and underground.
Making Barrowpit Meadows accessible to wheelchair and mobility scooter users.
Please improve current roads by filling potholes and reduce speed bumps.
Infrastructure to encourage low carbon transport options.
Page 136
Q9 Additional Comments
Are there any additional comments that you wish to make on the draft Alsager Town Strategy?
Additional Comments:
Objective 6: we do not want any supermarkets in the region of Alsager. It would spoil the village feel.
With the expansion of co-op in the town centre, this is enough.
I would like a supermarket, not a convenience store an actual supermarket which is open late and a full
shop can be done
1. The objectives for amenity spaces i.e. sports / football pitches etc. seem to be centralised in one Area
and build on the existing areas. Amenity spaces need to be spread around Alsager for the good of all the
people.
2. Public transport and cyclists both need good road infrastructure. This aspect is completely missing from
this draft plan. Do you proposed a walk only Alsager?
3. East Cheshire has off loaded the Civic Centre and other facilities to the local Council why are you
including these in your plan? Do you intend to take them back?
Strongly disagree with the development of the evening economy in area O. It brings no to low value to
the daytime economy, low paying unskilled jobs in businesses with a very low success rate. It is a low
quality aspiration. The area already has a vibrant and growing cluster of professional services, personal
services and wellness businesses all bringing well paid high skilled jobs. There is a natural synergy here
and it is this that should be encouraged and developed by the town strategy forming a destination of
quality for this type of business. Already in area O are dentists, chiropodists, opticians and chiropractors,
hairdressers, beauty salons, natural skin products, tanning centre and florists. Then there are
accountants, lawyers, computer specialists, marketing firms and training companies. ASPIRE for
something better for this residential area. I feel very strongly that the designation for area O for
development of the evening economy is completely wrong. It doesn't fit with the mixed residential nature
of the area and ignores the great commercial and employment strengths that that area O already has. In
place of the evening economy, development of area O as the Services hub for the town will bring higher
quality longer lasting employment from sustainable businesses, further enhance the strong, long lasting
businesses already here providing well paid skilled jobs. It will maintain and enhance a high quality village
environment for this part of town. Further development of the evening economy will spoil the daytime
feel of area O and drive away high businesses to better quality locations in other towns. My challenge to
you all is to Aspire to something better and of higher quality for Alsager and its children.
There is no statement anywhere in the plan explaining how a new "sports and leisure hub" would fit with
the current Leisure Centre rather than consume its custom and make both non-viable. For it to work, you
need to bring in a sports-based organisation (such as a sports academy or national / regional centre of
excellence, whether able-bodied, disabled or both) to take ownership and provide most of its use. Having
so many optional development areas is not good. Due to the closure of the MMU and retrenchment of
Twyfords, there is already excess housing.
Section 8: There is no explicit reference to digital connectivity such as fibre-optic broadband, 3G / 4G
mobile coverage or public WiFi. I strongly believe that any industrial growth over the twenty year scope of
this plan must be based on knowledge-based economy, and this in turn demands we embrace fully the
opportunities provided by digital-based communications. This in turn, in my opinion and
recommendation, necessitates the latest and best physical infrastructure in terms of fibre optics.
Therefore such provision should be explicitly planned for, probably in "Theme 7"
8.3: No indication given in the document as to why additional "specialist housing need" is required.
Impossible to discuss desirability of education infrastructure without demographic information.
General: Several references are made to improving/providing cycleways. I agree this is desirable, but no
Draft Alsager Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q9 Additional Comments
Page 137
more important than improving and maintaining footpaths and footways. No reference whatsoever was
made to tourism, and it has been established in many other areas of the country that provision of a
comprehensive, interconnected network of footpaths can draw walkers into an area, to the benefit of the
local economy in general, Although Alsager itself has little intrinsic interest, it may be able to exploit the
nearby canal network, and even the adjacent Gritstone, Staffordshire and Sandstone Ways.
I notice that the larger context of the plan is not mentioned at all. It explains that it is part of the Local
Plan but has no reference to other parallel consultations such as those for Sandbach and Holmes Chapel. I
live in Thurlwood and so will potentially be affected by all three of these.
Reference is made to Alsager Partnership without explanation as to what this is (I would have expected
this to have been explained in the Glossary).
In section 1.8 reference is made the Alsager Town Centre SPD without elaborating on what this is, when it
was drawn up or where it can be consulted.
Objective 3 does not seem to be a proper sentence - should the final words be "that uses innovative and
new technologies"?
Similarly Objective 5 seems to be badly worded and ambiguous - should it read "and to help reduce the
need for travel"?
Section 5.2 is where one might expect to see reference to other on-going strategy developments.
The map in Figure 6.1 would have been more useful if it had included the existing footpaths (especially
along the former railway line), and the waterway referred to in Area H.
The Legend on page 9 seems to omit the Existing Employment area of the Excalibur referred to elsewhere
in the document.
The table of Development Areas on pages 9 to 11 seems inaccurate in that it does not point out that
surrounding areas for C, E and F all include Green Belt (rather than just open countryside).
There are also a few typos:
•
Section 5.1 should read "looks to maximise ....." (or perhaps seeks?)
•
Section 6.3 contains an additional unwanted space between potential and development
•
The legend on page 9 misspells Employment
•
Section 7.2 contains an additional unwanted space between site and could
•
On page 13, there is too much space between Retention of ... and Improved pedestrian
Chapter 6.
Would appear that key decisions already made re 'preferred' and 'alternative' development areas despite
6.2!
The MMU site has excellent leisure facilities and should be utilised. However, the roads in this part of
Alsager could not support housing on this site too. Stand on Hassall Road at 8.30am to view the chaos!
5.3 Theme 1 Alsager has no assisted or supported housing for those with learning needs (the only part of
Cheshire East where this is so). So pleased that 'specialist support requirements' mentioned, but essential
that this is for ALL AGES. There are many young adults with physical and learning needs who wish to live
in the community of Alsager.
7.2 Alsager Town Football Club are a vital current and future resource in cementing the identity of the
town in South East Cheshire. Working with the excellent current proprietors of the club to ensure this
facility / club is protected is very important.
5 & 6 Good play areas in Town Centre area. Skate boarding. Could there be an adventurous cycling area in
MMU development. Saw one in Germany - unregulated, no health and safety issues there! Keep Milton
Park area. 6 Where town buses stop needs to be clearer, all around Alsager.
Page 138
Please see earlier comments on urgent need for major supermarket. The thought of their not being one
this side of 2030 is a disaster for Alsager. This will become even more of a dormitory town & even less of
a community.
Para. 5.3 Car parking many be a priority now (in 2012) but it should be seen as a priority if we are about
2020 - 2030, when fossil fuel costs will mean that car use becomes very prohibitive financially. It is
essential that pedestrian, bicycle and public transport infrastructure supersedes the short sighted focus
on car parking!
Para 5.3 Would emphasise support for suggested town centre and MMU site proposals. Also for Twyford
site proposals with some present anxiety that any substantial, large retail development there as
apparently being actively sought might well negate and undermine much of the positive strategy
objectives as documented.
I do not think the lovely trees should have been cut down to accommodate the needs of the Coop
development, so called improvements. They have been there for hundreds of years and very much part of
our lovely town. I do agree with Sainsbury’s building / having the Twyfords / Cardway site for a new
supermarket and petrol station, this is very much what the town needs, and its a site which can hardly be
seen from the road of houses. I was very disappointed to see the lovely daffodils being put in a skip after
the small island near the entrance to the car park was being dug up what a waste, these bulbs could have
been replanted elsewhere. Has no thought been put into any of the plans, does not seem like it.
Para 6 - Area A and Area J It would be interesting to know eventually what is planned to upgrade the
existing road pattern around these sites. With all the proposals I can not easily see if existing roads would
cope with the increase traffic. Area I Reasonably this would have direct access to the B5077.
Several paragraphs. Cannot suggest too often that greenfield sites should be preserved - enough has gone
already. New housing should be developed to satisfy and not to fulfil some kind of quota allocation. There
are many in Alsager who feel that the vision envisaged has already been realised without the necessity to
construct yet more houses. From whence might arise he need for more housing, with the closure of the
MMU campus and the presumed migration of its former staff and pupils? Enough of Alsager’s old charm
has already disappeared. There seems to be no need to consider any development of greenfield sites and,
in this respect, your text seems to be ambiguous. Indeed one of the remaining delights in Alsager Village
terms is the land at Fanny’s Croft, up to the Sprink and elsewhere, an area which should be seen as
SACROSANT. The playing fields on Cedar Avenue, the Football Ground and similar areas should also be
protected, certainly until other updated facilities can be provided. Part of the old charm that should be
reinforced is the coziness to some such sites. With regard to the MMU campus, the existing buildings
should be commissioned for use rather than be subjected to wilful destruction. There was at one time a
theatre/cinema on the sight which might be restored and even subsidized to keep youth off the streets.
Playing fields should definitely be retained, especially in the dark days of recession. The kitchen facilities
may indeed be needed to become the ‘soup kitchens’of C21st as the disabled, the aged, the savers of the
society face more and more cuts. There should be space to extend the introduction of computing and the
Internet to more of the general public, given the fact that almost everybody wants to go paperless or
thrust into the new universal state. The Town Centre misses its community information centre, which
should be restored. If further development has to take place, let it be on brownfield sites.
Objective 1 - very surprised there is no mention of education needs of the residents. Generally very little
is said about education, though it is identified as "desirable infrastructure". I would like to see more about
this. Generally I am impressed with the detail and thought which has gone into this strategy. There is little
to argue against (except, possibly, some of the development sites). The most difficult area is how to rank
the infrastructure priorities.
Page 139
I found it necessary to try to gain an overall picture of how the elements of the strategy fitted together
and was concerned that nowhere is there a place to comment on this. I have made some overall
observations about "vision" in the relevant section above (paragraph 3) but this was not possible for
"objectives" (paragraph 4) and "strategy" (paragraph 5). Overall observations re paragraphs 4 and 5 are
thus included here. Also there was nowhere on the form to comment generally about development
options (paragraph 6) so I have made some observations here.
Further the website doesn't seem to allow blank lines separating paragraphs so I have "forced" their
inclusion with a paragraph containing a single full stop to try to help readability. Further again, the
software that produces the PDF version has several flaws. It seems to ignore newline characters
completely so all the text is contiguous - doesn't exactly make it easy to read. It transliterates characters
like quote marks and dashes to question marks, not always consistently. It also doesn't print selections
which have not been made. So if you can't say either YES or NO then this section is not included! As such
sections also contain identifying text then the resultant document loses context in places. I resisted the
solution of arbitrarily choosing YES or NO simply to get the text section material included. These faults
need sorting!!!! .
Re Paragraph 4 - objectives.
Objectives are specific targets which, taken together determine the achievement of the vision. Thus the
objectives together must 'cover' the vision and individually must be assessable as being achieved (or not).
As such they may add further insight into the vision; there may be more than one way to achieve the
vision. . Given my observation about the 'blandness' of the vision described in the draft there is obviously
a consequent difficulty in commenting with conviction about the presented objectives. They may well
cover the vision but the vision itself is too weak. Comment is of course still possible and useful, with the
proviso that other objectives might be required.
Re Paragraph 5 - strategy.
This section should identify the strategy for achieving the stated objectives. So there should be identified
links between the themes and the objectives. Further there should be some means of ensuring that the
themes cover all of the objectives. Of course, the current weakness of the draft objectives will mean that
there will be consequential weaknesses in the themes.
Re Paragraph 6 - development options.
The previous sections should help inform decisions for these options. This is not really apparent except
for a) the stated requirement to build around 1,000 homes and b) the need to create a new burial ground.
. The sort of directives that might be expected could be: 'concentrate new housing where it is now rather
than opening new housing areas' or 'define a new centre for some required activity (e.g. a new business
park, a new cultural area)' or 'maintain the character of existing areas of Alsager'. Opinion on what is
suggested is necessarily rather subjective.
My main concern with this document is that my first sight was on 23rd March and I had to reply by 2nd
April. To me this has been ongoing for some time and I feel aggrieved that it has not been in the public
eye before this time. I am not the only local resident who feel these concerns and can only hope that they
also take the time to air their own grievances. I firmly believe that a lot of the proposals are unnecessary.
Where there are existing run-down areas such as the MMU and Twyfords it will only be beneficial for the
outlook of these areas to undergo some kind of face change. Areas of greenfield sites are a major concern
to me as there are already limited facilities for leisure activities for children and adults alike.
Area A Former MMU Campus: Any future developments to stay in keeping with the surrounding
environment and improve facilities not to spoil the area.
Page 140
Para 6 There is a need to provide safe homes with sheltered care within Alsager for adults with special
needs and learning disabilities, so that they can continue to live near family. Those with special needs
NEVER get a mention in any plans. Why should they have to move out of the area to find such housing?
They are a priority for education and independent living. Will somebody please take note and then action.
[Edited by Admin]
General comment. I place high priority upon retaining the greenfield areas in Alsager and object very
strongly to using these for housing. They may offer easy solutions, MMU and Area J but is not what the
resident in Alsager I talk to want, you will encounter real opposition to this. A good example to residential
waking up has been the cutting down of trees for the Co-op project.
Para 2.3 Alsager is an ideal residential community because of its transport links, good community activity
and semi-rural environment. Para 2.4 Traffic is already at nuisance levels at certain times of the day. This
will take some dealing with. We don't want dual carriageways or more traffic lights and roundabouts.
Para 2.6 This is very important to develop the style of community so enthusiastically described in the
introduction. The omens however are not good. The felling of all the mature trees near the infant school
and the bull dozing of the playground for the new Co-op is an uncivilised act of vandalism. The Co-op
could have expanded without this land grab, it does not need its own car park. Fairview car park could be
used with a charging system to refund customers as is operated with Booths in Knutsford. 3 and 4 To
attract families to live here all existing greenspaces, leisure and sports facilities must be retained. You
can't have it both ways a village feel means looking like a village - not suburban sprawl. A lot of work is
needed to improve safety and convenience for pedestrians and cyclists - better designed road junctions,
better sited crossings, no footpath parking, no speeding, no HGVs. In the community envisaged there
should be employment in service businesses, significant industrial development does not look very likely
in the foreseeable future, event BAe can't be relied on long term. And a couple of general points: Why so
little publicity for the plan? Why wasn't a copy delivered to every household like the police and fire
reports, this is pretty important stuff for those of us who live have as well as future residents. Your
problem could well be a poor response to the questionnaire. Talking to friends and acquaintances it
seems many would say 'why bother they'll do what they want to anyway'. Sad isn't it.
Area J Many people strongly object, that this is not needed. We don not have the roads to cope. This can
not be resolved by a developer. Alsager does not have a ring road, we are a village but now very near to
losing the quality of life we have. If we continue upon a greater growth programme the reason for living
here would have gone. We could live in parts of Stoke-on-Trent or Newcastle and pay less Council Tax
with better transport links and nearer to hospitals etc. We do not have the infrastructure for more
development. If we must have more houses they can be accommodated at: 1 - the Twyfords Site 2 - MMU
brownfield element.
I do not understand why such a small and attractive village has to plan for a 10% increase in population
that will ruin the structure and appearance of the village. Somebody please stand up and say no! We are
20 minutes from Crewe and Stoke on Trent - there is ample housing and ample space for more at these
locations. We are an independent village and me need to keep it that way.
I do hope most of the items on the Draft Strategy, for Alsager, are commenced (if not completed!) by the
time I 'peg out'! - Good Luck.
Para 6.1 I feel the priority at the moment has to be the development of the MMU site. The creation of a
sports and leisure hub and new houses seem an excellent idea. It is good to see that provision involves
housing for the elderly and starter homes. Will the current schools be able to cope with the increase in
children in the town? Empty shops in the town are a no-no!
Page 141
1 Your document places emphasis on the character of Alsager with its greenness, and then details how
this will be spoilt by its proposals. Time and again you propose using greenfield productive farmland and
playing fields as sites for housing. This will destroy Alsager as we know it. A moratorium should be placed
on the use of greenfield sites until all brownfield sites have been used (in line with government policy). All
our housing needs of over 690 units (unless we are to become overspill housing for N. Staffordshire) can
be catered for on our brownfield sites: Twyfords 485, Cardway 50, University 300+, Infill gain 35+ =820
units. 2 With the need to feed a burgeoning national and world population, farmland will become
increasingly valuable as reach 2030. Do not plan to destroy this valuable commodity - it can not be
replaced.
I am annoyed that once again the Co-op are objecting to the Sainsbury’s Supermarket and Petrol Station.
When they wanted to develop a new store several years ago, they objected to Sainsbury’s having a store
alongside. They closed Liptons and after years of being empty it became the Bank Corner. I think that was
a good thing but again the Co-op did not want any competition. Their prices are sometime unbelievable last week - medium sized red salmon £4.29. I knew the price had increased but £2.95 or £3 is the most I'll
pay at other supermarkets. Skinless and boneless is £2.89 at Sainsbury’s but £4.49 at the Co-op - rip off
merchants. Coffee prices are unbelievable at the Co-op. Even the people in Crewe are complaining about
the cost of petrol compared to Newcastle and Stoke on Trent, so press ahead with the Sainsbury’s idea. In
addition, I notice at least two establishments: the Card Shop and Delissimo are asking for signatures to
stop the Sainsbury’s development. Personally, I can't see that development affecting the village
businesses, as people will park to go to the post office, the library, the Banks, Chatwins, the Bake Shop,
Charity shops, Bands and countless others. It doesn't mean that people in favour of Sainsbury’s won't
support the village businesses. With so many, you are made to feel so welcome there and enjoy a chat,
whilst being served. If all the future housing developments go ahead, a new store ill be an advantage and
stop people going to Tesco at Kidsgrove, to buy their petrol and so use the supermarket there - that takes
business away from Alsager. More houses means more jobs needed so Sainsbury’s will take on staff and
there will be even more jobs for those in the building trade. I notice there will be no more Whist Drives on
a Saturday night at the Institute. Why? - because the Council don't raise the letting cost every now and
the, no - they put the rent up every year, 10% or more. I run the Whist on a Thursday so I know how much
the rent has increased over the last 30 years. Before long there will be no nights out at all for 75's and
over. Last Thursday night was tricky for parking especially as four of our members are on two sticks. The
bowlers were supposed to be agreeable to park behind the bowling green but some still park in Green
Lane - a reminder would be appreciated, especially as the Whist Drive members use the facilities all
through the year and not just the summer. I was not happy when I called at the main car park by the
library and saw the new development starting. Fair enough, it will be an improvement but when I saw the
digger man just moving not only the soil, but also the daffodils and bulbs as well and dropping them in the
skip, I was upset. We try so hard to keep the village tidy and win the Village in Bloom competition and
these builders can't even be bothered to uproot the daffodils and replant them somewhere else in the
village, when they've just come in to bloom. Then we've lost some lovely trees. So I hope the Co-op will
leave us with some greenery, plants, shrubs and trees when it is finished and they pay for the
replacements. the Rotary Club do so much for the village and their good work should be appreciated and
acknowledged.
Page 142
Para 5.3 (1) '1,000 new homes by 2030'. How is this arrived at - I wish there was some phasing with this
strategy. For instance, which area is the first priority area to be developed as the requirement for new
homes (if any) materialises over time. Para 5.3 (4) 'Creating a new Sports and Leisure Hub at MMU' - I'm
not sure what this means but more development of sports facilities must be very low on a priority list
when current facilities are under used. Para 5.3 (5) 'Improve bus links' - surely the priority is to retain
what we have (rather than thinking of improvements) when cost is already an issue for Cheshire East.
General The biggest problem with Cheshire East strategies is that they have grandiose plans, which are
not phased or costed properly (at Crewe Park that incorporated facilities that were not needed and
everything was given the same priority). Please rank and indicate which areas in this plan / strategy are
priorities for development.
Para 6.3 Area J is greenfield land with poor access because of school and narrow roads (Close Lane).
Public inquiry indicated development should be direct on to Crewe Road. if greenfield land needs to be
used it should be Area H. greenfield land should not be needed if brownfield sites and football pitches are
used and sport accommodated at MMU site.
Para 6.3 (Areas A and J) and Para 7.2 Area A: the MMU site, should be developed in line with the
determination by the Inspector at the Public Inquiry when it was indicated that development should be
restricted to existing footprint and that sports facilities should be retained. Area J is greenfield land with
very poor road access since at Hassall Road it would be close to access to Pikemere School with heavy on
road parking. At Dunnocksfold Road the access would be to a new road with vehicles heavily using Close
lane for access towards Crewe or M6 motorway. This route (Close Lane) is very narrow with a very bad,
poor visibility bend and major difficulty getting out into Crewe Road. Inspector at previous Public Inquiry
indicated that future development of non brownfield sites should be with direct access onto Crewe Road
or A5011 i.e. Area H and Twyfords sites!
Recreational facilities must remain in the community and not moved to one site. MMU is private land and
money comes from houses not sports facilities - they will not materialise. Moving Alsager FC is another
nonsense, why not move the Cricket Club as well. Those who contributed to these plans from Alsager
were ill informed and live in cloud cuckoo land.
6 Development Options Areas E and G are shown as in Green Belt on the plans The Development Options
on p8 extend outside the existing boundary of Alsager. Alternative development Area I includes land
within the Haslington Parish. As a parish council we would welcome the provision of affordable housing
that would be available to people with ties to Oakhanger, however the proximity of Area I to the White
Moss Quarry would be a concern whilst the site remains in commercial use. Is any of the land within Area
I required for potential mineral extraction? Figure 6.1 requires more roads and other landmarks to
understand the areas impacted by the proposals. Would be concerned at the loss of any car parking
provision within the town centre to ensure shopping and health services remain available to those people
who need to travel in by car from the surrounding rural communities such as Oakhanger. The strategy
does not explicitly address the issue of any decline in the number of properties occupied by students
following the relocation of MMU to Crewe. General Comment. The Alsager Draft document is much more
logically coherent than the Sandbach Draft proposals.
6. Development Options Absolute priority to be given to "Brownfield" Sites for Housing Development.
Green and open spaces to be preserved as a priority. 7.2 Twyfords Development Restrict number of
dwellings to 300 to maintain space for light industrial / storage useage. 7.8 Crewe Road Frontage To
provide greater public access to the Alsager Mere by enlarging the existing gardens by the compulsory
purchase of the adjacent commercial properties. The mere is a wasted asset for Alsager.
Page 143
I really do hope the opinion of members of the community are actually taken into consideration in the
finalisation of these plans. Without hardworking residents then Alsager is nothing more than a heartless
ghost town. If residents views are ignored and decisions affect them in a negative way then they'll leave.
4) I agree a sports and leisure hub is important based at the MMU site. However I believe there is still a
need for places where children can kick a ball about and play on swings, slides etc. a slimmed down
version of areas C and F if these are not made available I'm sure you will have problems of children
playing in the streets.
Para. 6.3 I object strongly to building between 1035 and 1810 new houses in Alsager. This equates to an
additional 2200 - 4000 extra residents. The plan does not show where the necessary extra schools will be
built or how additional road capacity will be provided. Increasing the population by 17% - 32% will destroy
Alsager's 'village feel'. Para. 6.3 Houses should not be built on Alsager FC Ground and adjacent pitches
and on Cedar Avenue playing fields. These greenspaces are of great amenity to residents old and young in
their respective parts of Alsager. For the community as a whole they form an essential part of a 'network
of greenspaces throughout the town'.
Need more parks - MMU Campus.
Para 5.3 Areas C&F will not enhance greenspaces - theme 6 Area H will allow better links to existing BAE
site - cycleways take traffic off the Crewe Road. Para 7.7 Is significant alteration required in Area N? Fig
6.1 Provision of 500 houses to east of Sandbach Road, but all new sports facilities provided on western
edge of town - could the facilities be split? Para 8.3 Priorities - an increase of 1,000 houses, say 1,000
extra children - how can education provision be a low priority? General How can a 'village' have a 'town
centre' and an industrial area? Along with Areas C&F, has building on Milton Park and Cranberry Moss
been considered?
Sections 3 &4 Whilst I agree with the general vision, I feel the objectives are too generalised. They should
be more specific as to how they might be achieved. Theme 4 I fully support the vision of a Sport and
Leisure Hub at the MMU Site but can this document or the eventual Local Plan influence this desire?
MMU and any developer will want to maximise their return so will market forces prevail and overrule any
Local Plan? Theme 5 Improved transport can only be achieved by working with the transport providers.
This should be stated. Theme 7 There is considerable local concern at the prospect of being buried
elsewhere. Cemetery provision should be elevated in priority.
5.3 I find the reasoning in this paragraph to be unconvincing and potentially very damaging to the
character of the town/village of Alsager.
I feel Theme 6 is the most important theme for the Development of Alsager. When I lived here as a child,
Alsager was always referred to as 'The Village' because of it's community spirit and size. It is already in
danger of losing the 'village feel' as it has expanded over the years. Any more housing development, it will
just turn into another soulless conurbation area. There is much potential in making Alsager a pleasant
place to live and we need to focus on attracting people to the area. Affordable leisure and hobby facilities
for all would not only create employment but bring in income from others wanting to share the facilities.
The introduction of the Leisure Centre and Alsager's first swimming pool was a coup back in the Seventies
as was the new Civic Centre and the discos and entertainment it provided for all ages. As more people are
having time on their hands due to longevity or unemployment, we should be looking towards catering for
their needs inexpensively and beneficially.
Page 144
I am generally for the development of Alsager with an emphasis on sustainability. I can therefore not
agree with any development of Green Belt land as this runs counter to the Vision for Alsager. Existing
infrastructure also needs to be enhanced, e.g. drainage along Audley Road, in conjunction with any
further development, and traffic flows planned along all major road links in and out of the town due to
the increased population.
The Draft Town Strategy for Alsager document has had minimal publicity and it is only by chance that we
have become aware of it. The questionnaire is difficult to understand, it is difficult to complete and
encourages answers neither of which completely satisfy ones opinions. I suspect that there will be a poor
response to this consultation as people will be deterred by its complexity. Was this the intension? Any
expansive development in and around Alsager will destroy the ‘village feel’. Development will exert extra
pressures on the fabric and infrastructure and will also destroy the present community spirit. The ‘village
feel’ is already taking a battering with the extensive development of the Co-operative site in the heart of
Alsager. If any new housing developments are deemed necessary they must utilise brownfield sites. It
seems completely illogical that any brownfield sites that become available are commandeered by
powerful supermarket chains of which there are far too many in the locality as it is. No developments
must be permitted on Greenfield sites - once built on these spaces are gone forever â€“ this includes
building on football pitches. (Relates to previous questions)
Some of the wording is unclear at this stage and therefore could be misinterpreted. The developments
currently in the plan, appear to favour government or council owned areas as the steer for development,
rather than the best development opportunities for the town.
The complete document is littered with a rose-tinted, idealised view of life, Alice in Wonderland
proposals, flowery phrases and sentiments. Other than a statement about maintaining car parking
capacity in the town the consultation document seems to ignore the car completely. Cycleways and
improved public transport are not going to stop people using their cars. Alsager is a small commuter town
with the document proposing a 20% growth in under 20 years it will remain so. It will never go back to
being a village. The Town Council and Partnership (para 1.1) should be campaigning to improve the
highway infrastructure. The proposed increase in population will bring with it increased traffic, primarily
in the form of car journeys - more school runs, to/from work, out-of-town shopping. The Highways
Agency should be being lobbied to have the B5077 Church Lawton to Crewe brought up to A-road
standard. Similarly the Audley Road to the A500 also needs upgrading.
General: Any consultation document should be written in clear and plain English. This Strategy document
fails in this respect by using politically generated words and phrases too much. A clearly stated document
will produce much more valuable responses from responders and will give a clearer indication of ideas
and feelings. If this is what you really want.
The cycle routes in Alsager not existent. The road surfaces are some of the worst in the area. All this
needs to addressed as a matter of urgency. The main road between Crewe and Alsager is not really fit for
cyclists. What about a cycle route next to the railway line into Crewe? Part of the route is single line so
this a possibility. Changing the speed limit from 40 to 30 miles an hour on Sandbach road north would be
a good start. The entrance/exit from the Salt line is very dangerous.
[8.3] Include pedestrian routes (as well as cycleways). [7] Provision of sufficient modern retirement
homes could encourage older people to move there and make their larger homes available for families.
[7] I am concerned that affordable basic sport and leisure facilities should be available as not everyone
can, or wishes to, afford to use privately-run leisure centres.
I strongly agree that we should not build on any greenfield sites. Only build on brownfield sites ! Leave
existing open spaces as open spaces !
Page 145
this is the 3rd plan I have given input to in the last few years (I have lost track of the exact names of the
previous ones). I hope that this one actually become an agreed plan that is kept to and that we don't get
this same questionnaire again in a couple of years.
[8.3] Include pedestrian routes (as well as cycleways). [7] Provision of sufficient modern retirement
homes could encourage older people to move there and make their larger homes available for families.
[7] I am concerned that affordable basic sport and leisure facilities should be available as not everyone
can, or wishes to, afford to use privately-run leisure centres.
The vision and the strategy conflict. The strategies conflict. Real comment can only be made when things
are put in context....shopping outlets. The whole plan depends on private enterprise e.g. shops, transport,
utilities and their agreement and timescales
The Draft Alsager Town Strategy is not a Neighbourhood Plan as it is being prepared in advance of the
Local Plan Core Strategy. It therefore carries very little weight other than setting out a series of local
aspirations/views to be considered which largely ignores the wider evidence base being assembled by
CEC. Preparation of the Town Strategy should not proceed until the town’s strategic context has been
established within the emerging Local Plan. The Draft Town Strategy largely ignores CEC’s assembled
evidence base. It is important that this evidence and associated strategies are taken into account in
preparing a strategy for Alsager.
This survey - in giving just yes or no answers - gives no room for qualified comment There is no discussion
of affordability - especially of the target number of houses, in terms of sustainability of the village centre e.g. where are the cars all going as the car park is already full on Mondays and Wednesdays’ - the coop is
building a bigger store (and presumably hoping for more customers) The Coop development - by starting
by cutting down 20ish mature English trees set a very bad precedent for sustainability The non provision
of additional car parking at the start of this development gave the message that the profits of the
developer overrode the needs of the town and what is there in all these words to stop that happening
again?
6 - Affordable and specialist need housing Specialist - yes Affordable - no Quality - yes
We cannot rely upon our neighbouring communities to retain green space on their sides of boundaries. It
is up to us to preserve what we have for as long as possible, to ensure that residents of Alsager can
continue to enjoy the 'village feel'. It would be good to get rid of the pylons and the overhead cables in
our street when the economic climate improves.
Just leave the village alone - there's been enough vandalism done. With new housing etc. Lets have the
roads and footpaths repaired to the proper standard.
Get rid of this mad hat housing scheme. What are you after another Crewe?
We can't keep taking away playing fields and green walking areas then bring in lots of people, kiddies and
dogs and have nowhere for them to walk, relax, have a kickabout! It's no use replacing all this with indoor
facilities!
People choose to live in Alsager due to its quiet atmosphere and village feel. Green space is vital to a feel
good, healthy lifestyle. Are so many planned houses really necessary? At what cost? If overdeveloped a
lot of people may move out of Alsager and re-locate to other smaller villages / towns which Alsager used
to be!
This document seeks to convince the people of Alsager that they are going to get an improvement in the
facilities of this village / town, whilst legally informing them of what they're going to lose - everything, in
my view.
Page 146
The draft Strategy is a typical planning non-brief. It says little in detail and seeks to clothe pious platitudes
in terms which can convince independent observers of a proper and thoughtful 'consultation'. Think again
please!
The strategy does not make clear how we will benefit and cloaks what we will lose.
I do believe that it will be beneficial to develop the MMU site and Twyfords / Cardway sites. However,
there are already a number of houses not sold in Alsager and shops in the village often close because they
are not viable. I do not believe it is appropriate to look to build on the fields around and beyond Fanny's
Croft.
As a general comment the vision for Alsager up to 2030 is a very commendable aspiration, but I feel
agencies outside of the control of the residents of Alsager will dictate the future of our town.
General comments: Make real effort to negotiate with MMU for the retention of sports, arts, drama
facilities which are first class. The housing proposals for the MMU and Area J, will only add to the
problems which we already have regarding road width, quality etc.
Page 4 'To maintain a high quality of life with Alsager by providing appropriate facilities, services and
amenities, that are accessible to all, to me the health, social, sporting, cultural and leisure needs of the
residents'. What a load of **** [edited by admin]. It looks after a small percentage of residents of
residents in a small area of Alsager, great for sports fans and residents near the college. What about those
who live at the other end of the village, don't drive or don't want to pay. Cheshire East Council are out of
touch with residents of Alsager. As the run in I had some months ago proves, it is run by idiots who is only
interested in the bottom line, using Alsager and its residents as a cash cow, milking it and it's resources.
'Leave our green space alone'
Stop outsiders from getting houses around here until local people have been considered first.
Para 2.1 Housing: Potentially 1810 houses / homes identified. To arrive at 1,000 from consultation.
General concern is that Alsager's present infrastructure (schools, police provision, roads, etc) can not
sustain. MMU - ideal for Alsager School expansion / modernisation which will be required to serve extra
homes - possible 6th form centre of students will look to Newcastle, Stoke or Crewe (see current
development at Cheadle, Staffs). Agree with good quality affordable housing and residential care. Town
needs more 'centre' facilities for young people (i.e. current need - over 100 12-16 year olds attend Christ
Church Youth Club on Friday evenings)
If the town is to grow as envisaged the following points should be borne in mind: - Adequate transport
facilities both public and private - All the utilities to grow with the town 2/2 - Shopping facilities to be
expanded both in variety and service which are not as good now as they were 50/60 years ago. 3/1
Adequate employment locally to provide work for the expanded population.
Para 7.3 Alsager's hidden jewel 'the Mere'. More private property needs to be secured to be developed as
open space (possibly adjoining Northolme Garden). The integration of the railway station and more car
parking space for commuters.
The plan in general encroaches on current 'greenfield' sites and does not allow for open areas with the
town area, in fact the actions proposed are in opposition to this, totally urbanising the town.
Page 147
I live outside Alsager's boundary and believe Alsager's strategy should be decided by Alsager's residents.
My main concerns are Haslington’s and Alsager’s potentially conflicting interests and residents health.
Without more information on the following issues it is impossible to make a considered sensible decision
on proposed development areas:
1. Haslington's plans are unknown, (I live in Oakhanger and have not seen any proposals or plans) could
conflict with Alsager's strategy.
2. Fast rail, motorway widening, Sainsburys / Alsager Town Council intentions, increase lorry movements,
do not appear to have been considered.
3. Noise. Ever increasing noise levels, recognised in industry, impaired hearing often discussed, but sleep
deprivation and mental health issues caused by traffic noise are ignored. e.g. would building houses on
Twyfords still be an option if Fast Rail was routed through the site? e.g. quiet road surfaces are an option,
motorways and main roads a good starting point, target the causes of health problems.
Put residents quality of life at the forefront of any strategy.
Maintenance of Alsager’s existing roads and pavements is worse than anything we have previously seen
and seems to deteriorate year on year. Prioritising existing infrastructure makes more sense.
Can we be told how much has been spent on this consultation and how much was spent on consultancy
fees. Is this an appropriate use of scarce public money in these straitened times?
4 - It is sheer hypocrisy to have a vision statement that includes 'easy access to countryside' - and then
lists such sites (to the countryside) under potential development - namely E&F. 6 - I have listed sports as a
low priority because there are existing greenfield amenities - areas listed as CJF. Another case of muddled
thinking - as in para 4.
Only just seen the draft. I have not had enough time to consider all aspects before the closing date. I
would like to be informed of future developments.
Area J I am, or was, considering purchasing a house in Alsager, near to the former college MMU. But
during my conversation with the estate agent he described to me the situation regarding the town centre,
Civic Hall, new Co-op etc, and gave me a copy of this document. I alarmed to see that a plan exists which
contains the possibility of building on a large scale on the Area J. Why? Why? Why? I am told that there
was a possibility of more housing but this would be restricted to areas already built upon. I asked to move
to Alsager to be close to my relatives but now can't see any reason to move from one over build area to
another.
Produced in a ‘professional’ setting, looking suspiciously like a deliberate oversight, what is missing from
all four Draft Town Strategy Consultation documents which are due to close their doors today in respect
of Alsager, Congleton, Middlewich and Sandbach, is the local opportunity to plan for old age and
disability, by producing the necessary local infrastructure to encourage self-help, community help and
freedom of movement in the old, rather than the expensive burdensomeness, which is the way in which
their needs are openly spoken of in this Cheshire East Council area.
Town Strategy Consultations should not be about airy-fairy Visions for Leisure Time and Enhancing the
Public Realm but about the practicality of town centre buildings for use in the 21st century for the actual
needs of a very large section of the population. It is about positive, practical factual infrastructure, care
and help where it is needed, valuing family and other carers, valuing life experience and education,
valuing the elderly volunteers who appear in all corners of Cheshire East and making caring use of their
valuable, freely-given contribution to this Council area. The work achieved by the fit elderly is beyond
price. This work must in future be valued and encouraged by a provision of suitably built and effectively
combined infrastructure in every town in the Borough.
The old are gathering. They will not be going away. It seems there are three options for the resolution of
this problem:
Page 148
1 Kill them - or otherwise get rid of them
2 Carry on mistreating their needs and regarding them as a Burden
3 Make full use of their very valuable knowledge and invaluable voluntary help â€“ and provide useful,
dignified Day and Respite care, Rehabilitation and simple Nursing care in all the local towns where it is
needed, for those people whose health is failing, and who live in those local towns.
We also need Public Wellbeing Centres for healthy local populations, where they can meet, socialise, take
out a library book, drink tea, eat healthy food, read the papers, learn and volunteer their services; where
they can access, via intelligent caring individuals (that much underrated, undervalued, underpaid, very
experienced group) such oncoming care as memory clinic, toenail cutting, hearing help, day care, respite
care, rehabilitative care, simple nursing care and stay in touch at their welcoming social centre - with all
their friends, for mutual support.
Friends can withstand the miseries, bereavement, failing memory, odd behaviour, and can provide a
familiar and supportive background to the failing lives of each other. We don’t need flawed visions but
factual, practical help. We don’t need slews of wasted buildings and lies about their drains but practically
based knowledge and enthusiasm to keep up the fabric and make good use of every building which this
council owns. Where any building cannot be used for the public good, it should be sold or leased, and the
money used to fund the rapidly growing and urgently needed help for the elderly, the disabled and the
family carers of this Council area. This will save Council taxpayers money.
This is to place on record, that these comments are directly relevant to all four of the Town Strategy
Consultation documents, whose consultation time is up today. I formally ask that a copy of this statement
should also be placed against each of those documents for Alsager, Congleton, Middlewich and Sandbach,
and against all future Town Strategy documents, to ensure that adequate public infrastructure for the
wellbeing of the old, the disabled and carers, is included in all Town Strategies across Cheshire East
Council area stating that disability access is a very good if belated - idea, but it should only be the start, of
21st century thinking which will open public buildings, for the first time to the full benefit of the health
and wellbeing of the public.
Alsager roads and sewers will not take the houses you want to build 80% on ex. Green Belt land. (You can
not repair and maintain Alsager now) Bring back the old Alsager Council. Cheshire East waste money.
Alsager is in a sad state. All the extra houses will mean more traffic on roads and that can not be altered
without costing millions of pounds. Ashmore Lane never gets a road sweeper. Road curbs have been
down for 40 years and are breaking up badly on most roads.
Superficially reads well, the devil will be in the detail!
Objective 6 Theme 2 References are made about retaining the 'village feel' Alsager is a small town and is
referred to as a village by senior citizens. Para 7.3 References are made to increased visibility of the Mere.
How can this happen when bungalows are built behind shops and blocks of flats and planning allows a
huge house to be built up to the edge of the Mere. This will in time if allowed to continue will see the
Mere access by residents of houses and flats only. When the Co-op is finished etc although being an
improvement will see charging for parking on the main car park which will have an adverse effect on
trade. What will be done in the long term to stop houses being built (large houses) in back gardens which
overlook smaller properties. Should not be allowed.
The term village is mentioned 6 times in the Strategy document. With the development apparently
necessary for the next 18 years it seems unrealistic to talk about 'village feeling' as perhaps unfortunately
Alsager is now a small town and will continue to develop further as a town as it expands.
Page 149
Para 5 The MMU site has had so much money spent on it I believe it will be a disgrace if it is not used as it
should be. The pool is better and the gym also, we must keep this centre for children now and in the
future. The hall could be used as a cinema and function room. In the past we have had the All England
School Athletes at the site training and the Italian Football Team training as well. We must use it as a
town. To build housing on the playing fields would be dreadful. The Alsager School already uses parts of
the MMU site.
Effect of proposed high speed rail link?
I think we have enough houses for sale without building more. The extended Coop store will encourage
people from surrounding areas to come to village. Also if there is a Sainsburys store where Twyfords used
to be more people will come and business will boom. Fanny's Croft is a pleasant walk not far from the
village and should be left as it is with attention to the land and hedges.
You say that you want to create more greenspaces but you seem to want to build on all the greenspaces
we have! There are loads of houses for sale why do we need more?
No greenfield sites should be built on they should be enhanced.
Having grown up in Alsager I enjoyed as a child all the open space in the surrounding area that has now
sadly been lost to housing development. I have now returned back to live Alsager after 30yrs and chose
carefully where to live, I chose Cresswellshawe Road because of its close proximity to walkways, wildlife,
open spaces and amenities that I hope to enjoy more fully in retirement. I understand the need for
development and agree mostly to the town strategy, and feel it would not be detrimental to the existing
community if building was to take place in areas A, B, D, J, G and H but would strongly oppose any
development on widely used on common land. I am confused with certain elements of the town strategy
you talk of conserving and enhancing the network of greenspaces and in the next instance earmarking the
said land for development?
There does not seem to be any planning or mention of any new schools. All these new houses how will
they provide education for the influx of new families.
Greenfield areas are for people to enjoy for free leisure activities and should be left.
Having spoke to a person who was at workshops to put this together I was told that Area C was an
alternative area not preferred. So is it a printing error - I think not! You go against working party
agreement! How can you build 1,000 homes and not have the education to support these, only a few
years ago you shut a school and now residents have to walk from 1 side to the other to get their children
educated because local school is full!
I find it strange that looking at infrastructure priorities no mention of provision has been made regarding
the proposed high speed rail track, which has been recommended by the Government, which is to go
right through the middle of Alsager! If the high speed rail goes ahead everything that has been proposed
will be blown out of the window. Surely it would be better to focus on re-routing the rail track.
Para 7.2 The greenfield sites should be identified and maintained as such. Failure to do that impinges on
current residents and reduces the quality of current housing. Para 5.3 Does Alsager need 1,000 homes
when houses have been on the market for more than 12 months? The re-use of developed land does not
include use of the playing fields, where there are no buildings. Losing and demolishing the College is a
disgrace and a tremendous waste of money.
I would like to see Alsager identified as a Cheshire market town this Stoke-on-Trent Staffordshire
nonsense does Alsager no favours whatsoever.
Page 150
Para 5.3 1,000 new homes implies an extra 2,200 residents. Such a huge increase in the size of Alsager will
detract from its 'village feel' and the traffic generated will cause problems. How will road capacity be
increased and where will the schools be built? Para 6.3 Alsager Football ground and Cedar Avenue playing
fields should not be built on. To do so would be a great loss to the residents of those parts of the town
and would run counter to the vision of Alsager as having a 'network of greenspaces throughout the town'.
Para 8.3 Alsager already has a Leisure Centre. A new Sports Hub should not be a top priority.
I have lived in Rode Heath, Alsager for over 75 years. Rode Heath has been totally split, was a lovely
village, Alsager is now getting the same way. My family are now moving away and feel no reason to live
here. It was safe and nice but no more. Why do we keep building more and more when houses are empty
for years and can't be sold. Alsager has given too much. This plan does not meet my needs and age will be
the real problem in the future the elderly and the old.
Area J is good farmland, poor access for other uses.
Thank you to the people (voluntary and paid) who have put their time and thoughts into this document
and the day to day running / care of our town.
The main concern is the possible loss of agricultural and greenfield land. Especially since the number of
residential properties already vacant and for sale in the area. Conservation of greenspaces are absolutely
essential and should be improved rather than eroded!
Though broadly agree with the principles I would have significant concerns about potential development
of certain green areas - specifically Cedar Avenue, Fanny's Croft and Wood Park. These give residents
open spaces to play, interact, dog walk and enjoy outside spaces.
The whole thing is meaningless without any costings to tell what is revenue neutral / positive / negative
at time everyone is having revenue cuts why are wasting it with this marketing bumpff?
Page 10 Concern as to the amount of development is creeping into agricultural / greenfield sites. There is
ample brownfield site potential in and around Alsager without using up greenspaces.
After being advised that the Green Belt line that runs through our land has been wrongly drawn by the
Council, we feel that if it was corrected we would have a substantial amount of land to easily
accommodate 15-25 affordable homes or sheltered accommodation. This could be done without
encroaching into any of the existing Green Belt land around Fanny's croft, also bringing into line with
existing retirement properties.
Two general points a) Any development of MMU sports/leisure hubs will compete with existing facilities
at the joint use leisure centre which currently has a fabulous swimming pool. A decision must be made as
to which pool (MMU or leisure centre, Hassall Road) to promote - allowing both to compete could result
in the loss of both. This is a facility much valued by the disabled. b) Please do something to enforce
residential speed limits in Alsager. I would like to see a radical change in balance of protection (re safety)
afforded to pedestrians and cyclists. - People cannot walk of cycle in Alsager it is too dangerous!
Please find attached a plan showing our client's land known as the land South of Crewe Road, Alsager. It is
considered that the exact amount of land that is required should be determined through the Core
Strategy / Local Plan. Subject to that requirement, it is highly likely that greenfield sites on the edge of the
settlement will be required to meet open market and affordable housing needs. The site is to be
promoted for residential use, and would comprise a logical urban extension, with the railway being a
logical and defensible settlement boundary. We will also be submitting the site to the SHLAA in due
course. It is suitable, developable and achievable, and could be delivered as early as in the next 5 years
subject to achieving planning permission.
Page 151
United Utilities PLCs has no additional comments to make at this stage, United Utilities PLCs historical
consultation responses and meeting comments are still valid. Water and wastewater services are vital for
the future health and well-being of your community and the protection of the environment. When
developing your Local Development Framework [LDF] and future policies LPA should consider the impacts
on the health and well-being its community, environment and ensure infrastructure capacity is available.
If infrastructure deficiencies cannot be addressed, an alternative location and/or timescale should be
sought where infrastructure capacity is available and it meets the LPA development needs. Recent
flooding and drought events should highlight to the Council the importance of managing flood risk and
water resources; and their long-term impacts on the community; its health; well-being and its prosperity.
Seven water companies have announced drought measures highlighting the need to manage water
resources effectively, given increasing pressure on water supply because of population increase, changing
household usage patterns and by climate change. All this despite the UK having a reputation as being a
rainy country, we may face a future with less rainfall and less certainty about when that rain will fall.
United Utilities PLC would seek the support of the Council in the LDF and planning application processes
to protect/secure land for infrastructure use. Failure could mean United Utilities PLC cannot provide the
additional capacity required to support your growth plans therefore a failed and/or undeliverable
development plan. Inappropriate development could result in the closing of a hospital and/or school etc,
due to the inappropriate development siphoning off the historical water or wastewater infrastructure
capacity; no water supply for washing and catering facilities and/or sewerage flooding of the
property/highway. In considering any application for planning permission, the LPA and/or the applicant
must demonstrate that infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposal. If capacity is not
available, the application should not be approved.
Most regrettably, having previously had to take issue with Cheshire East Council over the Local Plan
consultations, we now find ourselves in the position of having to do so once more. The quality of the
consultation associated with the Town Strategies has been far from exemplary. Our reasons for
complaining on this occasion are as follows:
The time period is unacceptably short. One month is totally inadequate for a consultation, especially one
of particular interest to Town and Parish Councils. Most Town and Parish Councils only meet once a
month and some less frequently.
The maps in the four draft town strategies are very poor. It is difficult to pinpoint where development
aspirations are located - especially in relation to Town/ Parish Council boundaries - and land designations
such as SSSIs, SBIs amenity greenspace and green corridors are not depicted. Nor are nature reserves or
flood plains.
Although the questionnaires associated with the four town strategies offer an any other comments
section, they yet again fail to offer a specific opportunity for respondents to indicate how much they
value the Green Belt and/or the countryside. This will once more affect the subsequent analysis.
There is no explanation as to how processes that began as Neighbourhood Planning exercises and which
would have prompted referenda - morphed into ‘Town Strategies’ and (presumably) will not now be
subjected to referenda.
The electronic response system does not allow for over-arching comments such as those being made here
to be fed in, or comments on more than one place at once. (N.B. We made a similar complaint in relation
to the snapshot reports). In addition to our issues with the wider/ public consultation process, we have
also been asked by our members to take up with you the question of representation on the Town Centre
Strategy steering groups/ panels, the amount of notice that was taken of those individuals who were
present on behalf of neighbouring Parish Councils and the fact that adjoining Parish Councils were not
invited to submit their formal comments before the strategies were published for wider consultation,
even when as applies in some instances there would be land take and/or direct impacts on those
adjoining Parish Council areas. Put simply, the process appears to have begun with a promise of being an
inclusive neighbourhood planning one which registered voters in all immediate and adjoining areas would
have had the opportunity to vote upon but quickly evolved into development strategy proposals for the
Page 152
Local Plan which were worked up with undue haste.
We are not saying the resulting strategies are necessarily wrong, but we do take issue with the way they
were arrived at, lack of detailed data and confusing and inadequate processes. Also, some adjoining
Parish Councils have complained to us that they felt the process was being steam rollered, that their
representatives were not given a say in the timetable for panel meetings, their viewpoints were largely
ignored and/or they were not given the opportunity to take part in a formal vote on the draft strategies.
This being the case, the wider public consultation should have been of a sufficient period to allow Parish
Councils a proper opportunity to contemplate the potential implications of what was in them.
In addition, there is always a delay factor in the wider public and potentially interested bodies becoming
aware of consultations and then organising themselves to respond. ChALC will leave it to adjoining
parishes to offer specific commentary on any proposed development in their areas or immediately
adjacent to them. We would merely point out the fact that quite a lot of the identified potential
development areas are on agricultural farmland and a fair proportion of it appears to be Grade 2 or 3A
land. This should be a matter for some reflection as it would involve the loss of food/ dairy production
areas.
It is appropriate to conclude by drawing attention to what the NPPF has to say about land use and town
centres. It promotes the sequential test (para. 24) and it requires that there should be impact
assessments carried out on proposals for retail, leisure and office developments which are outside town
centres (para. 26). In addition, the NPPF calls on local planning authorities to have a clear understanding
of business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area. To achieve this they
should work together with county and neighbouring authorities and with Local Enterprise Partnerships to
prepare and maintain a robust evidence base to understand both existing business needs and likely
changes in the market (para. 160) and it says that: Local planning authorities should use this evidence
base to assess:
•
the need for land or floorspace for economic development
•
the existing and future supply of land available for economic development
•
the role and function of town centres and the relationship between them
• the capacity of existing centres to accommodate new development (para. 161)
This raises many queries in respect of the town strategy exercises. Has this level and depth of work been
carried out with neighbouring authorities? Have the different town centres within Cheshire East been
compared with each other? Were the people who served on the steering groups/ panels given sufficient
background information to make fully informed judgements? We hope that, if there have been any
shortcomings, they will be addressed as the process continues.
Page 153
A number of watercourses flow through the potential development sites highlighted in the Alsager,
Congleton, Middlewich and Sandbach strategies. These are: Alsager Valley Brook - Radway Green North.
Excalibur Brook - Cedar Avenue Playing Fields.
Please be aware that we would seek the protection and ecological enhancement of these river corridors
as part of any development proposals. This would help meet strict targets for these waterbodies set by
the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in the North West River Basin Management Plan. Under the WFD,
these waterbodies must reach good ecological status by 2027. The WFD is a wide-ranging and ambitious
piece of European environmental legislation. Its overall objective is to bring about the effective coordination of water policy and regulation across Europe. The hope is that it will give people and wildlife a
clean, healthy environment fit for the 21st Century. The WFD not only aims to improve water quality, but
also the morphology and hydrological quality of our rivers that have been heavily impacted by a number
factors, in particular industrial legacy. Any potential developer should consider the feasibility of
enhancing habitats along these waterbodies for wildlife. For example, the removal of redundant artificial
bank revetment and weirs for the benefit of water vole, fish and otters. For further information on the
WFD, please get in touch or visit our website: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfd
The Strategy assumes Milton park is a Park yet, in essence, it is football field with a garden in a corner.
The Strategy also seeks to increase housing but there is no provision for existing and future occupants to
relax, enjoy and stroll with their families in a park with paths, shrubs, trees and flowers: the accepted
definition of a park. This could be achieved by first earmarking a site at Twyfords for a football pitch to
replace the pitch at Milton as this site appears to be the earliest to be developed. It would also provide
recreational amenity at that end of the town. Milton could then be gradually developed as a park to
contribute to the retention of a village character. Less appealing options would be to create a park in Area
A - MMU, Area E - Fanny's Croft or Area H - Radway Green North.
Overall, BAE Systems support the process which Cheshire East Council is undertaking to develop a town
strategy and the general vision to accommodate growth in order for Alsager to become a sustainable,
thriving and prosperous town. However, BAE Systems have some comments on the themes of the
strategy and how they are executed in the document (see comments below). Paragraph 2.1 Whilst some
background is provided at paragraph 2.1 in regard to the profile of Alsager and the population of the
town there is no definition of the area that the strategy relates to. It would be useful if a plan or map was
included in the document to clarify the coverage of the strategy.
Paragraph 2.2 references BAE Systems Radway Green site and recognises the site as the town’s biggest
employer. Given the importance of the site to Alsager’s economy there should be some recognition of
BAE Systems’ recent investment and development at the Radway Green site. This includes a total of £83
million being invested in the site following a new partnering arrangement between the UK Ministry of
Defence (MOD) and BAE Systems, known as the Munitions Acquisition and Supply Solution (MASS). The
MASS contract provides increased job security at the site over the next 15 years and the investment has
enabled a new circa 23,000 sq metres, state of the art manufacturing plant, to be built at Radway Green
(completed in 2011).
Paragraph 5.3 It is relevant to include the full extent of BAE Systems operational land at Radway Green
(see attached plan) on Figure 6.1 ‘Alsager Development Options’. An area currently used for car parking
for BAE Systems employees is not shown as part of the existing employment area (coloured purple on
Figure 6.1). Once the new BAE Systems manufacturing facility is fully operational (currently forecasted for
2013), a number of buildings and land at BAE Systems site will become surplus to requirements. This
presents opportunities for former buildings providing around 48,000 sq metres floor space as well as
other surplus land. This opportunity should be recognised more clearly within the Alsager Town Strategy
under Theme 3: Balanced Local Economy.
BAE Systems support the strategy to safeguard and improve existing employment areas at Radway Green,
however some recognition of the opportunities presented at the existing employment site is required.
Page 154
The BAE Systems Radway Green site should be included in the development sites table on pages 9 - 11 as
a specific opportunity. This is particularly important, given the recent job losses at the former Manchester
Metropolitan University Campus and Twyfords. The BAE Systems site (together with the Radway Green
Business Centre) could form Area K on Figure 6.1 Alsager Development Options for additional
employment development. This would emphasise the opportunities that will be available at the site and
form the basis for a comprehensive planning strategy to bring the site forward for future development
ensuring that employment growth is embedded within the Strategy.
Paragraph 5.3, 6.1 and 6.2 It is clear in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 that the proposed development areas were
considered, identified and agreed by the Alsager Town Strategy Panel. However, it is not clear in the
document how the preferred and alternative development areas presented at Page 9 - 11 were arrived at.
It would be useful to provide additional information on how the sites were assessed by the Strategy
Panel. This could be summarised in the document or provided within an appendix. In particular, it would
beneficial to identify any criteria the panel used in selecting potential development sites.
Furthermore, there should be some commentary on how Theme 1 was agreed to identify and allocate
appropriate sites for 1,000 new homes by 2030. This is a very specific requirement and some commentary
or evidence base is required to justify how it has been arrived at.
BAE Systems accept that the sites will be subject to further appraisal and no decisions have been made on
the suitability of the areas for potential development. Nevertheless, there is currently a gap in the
strategy for Alsager as it does not explain how the potential development sites have been selected.
Page 11 - Area G - Area G is located immediately adjacent to BAE Systems magazines and hazardous
explosives area. There are a number of current HSE Explosive Licences that are active at the Radway
Green site which could potentially preclude development in Area G. The HSE recommend appropriate
separation distances between explosives sites for a number of categories of development. The explosive
licences should be included in the commentary in the Alternative Development Areas table. In addition,
as part of any further appraisal for the potential development sites as referred to Paragraph 6.2 detailed
consultation should take place with the HSE about the potential development of this area.
Page 11 - Area H BAE Systems support the inclusion of Area H as a potential development area. However,
due to the potential for employment or residential development, the site should be categorised as a
Mixed Use development area. BAE Systems consider that Area H is a natural growth area for the town by
infilling an area between existing residential development along the B5077 and the Radway Green
site/open countryside. The site would not involve the release of Green Belt land (unlike area G and E).
Furthermore, the development of Area H would link and connect the Radway Green employment area to
the town. The site has good access credentials and presents a sustainable development option for future
growth of the town. The site could also offer an opportunity for new formal and informal recreation
facilities. BAE Systems consider that Site H should be a Preferred Development Area for Alsager. Section 7
â€“ Development Principles As per the comments above, BAE Systems believe that the existing
employment area identified on Figure 6.1 should be labelled as a specific development opportunity for
employment growth (potentially as area K). Some development principles could be established within
Section 7 to outline suitable uses and the range of development that could be accommodated at this site.
This is fundamental in order to develop a robust economic vision for the town and deliver future
appropriate employment sites for Alsager. General BAE Systems would be interested in contributing
towards any future workshops for the Alsager Town Strategy.
Page 155
Alternative Sites - not considered in Draft Town Plan. There are clearly other potential development sites
that do not appear to have been considered as part of this process and which should be given full
consideration before progressing the Town Plan or Local Plan.
The full consideration of other sites is essential to ensure an appropriate level of housing provision can be
provided for over the plan period (to 2030). All local stakeholders including land owners and developers
should be engaged in this process to ensure all site opportunities are explored and properly assessed.
Land at Heath End Road / Sandbach Road North, Alsager (SHLAA Site Ref. 2455) Previous representations
put forward by my client in relation to the draft SHLAA (2011) outlined the credentials of this site for
residential development, not least that the site is available, suitable and capable of early delivery, and is
not constrained by Green Belt designation.
Current Use - The site is currently used for growing willow which is used on site for making various craft
related products. Part of the business includes a training centre where craft classes are held. This use is
compatible alongside a residential use and will form part of any future Masterplan for the site.
Site Deliverability / Suitability - The site is suitable given that it is free of significant constraints, benefits
from an excellent relationship to the immediately adjoining residential area, is outside of the Green Belt
and is in close proximity to services and facilities such as; local bus services (adjacent to the site), pubs,
primary and secondary schools, leisure centre and the Town Centre which provides a train station, banks,
post office, supermarkets and wide range of specialist stores.
It is therefore considered that the development of this site would contribute to the creation of
sustainable and mixed communities. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) considers that for
sites to be deliverable they should: be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and
be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on site within five years and in
particular that development of the site is viable.
My client’s site should clearly be given further detailed consideration as it is free of constraints, would
form sustainable development, is capable of early delivery, would provide a mix of housing (types and
tenure). Furthermore it would provide the opportunity to enhance public footpaths within the vicinity of
the site and therefore provide better linkages between the countryside and urban area to the benefit of
both new and existing residents.
Draft Strategy - Preferred Development Sites and Areas - It is noted that the development options identify
potential areas that may offer opportunities for development in the future and that such sites would be
subject to further appraisal before being taken forward in any Site Allocations document. In terms of the
sites identified within this document the following matters should be given further consideration prior to
preparing a revised Town Strategy or using the document to inform any part of the Local Plan process
given that some sites suffer from considerable constraints that would prevent viable development, whilst
others are unlikely to come forward in the short - medium term and therefore deliverability credentials
are questionable.
Conclusion These representations have clearly demonstrated that the Draft Town Plan as written fails to
justify, or even attempt to justify, the overall quantum of housing put forward for Alsager over the
forthcoming plan period. Furthermore, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the
reasoning for the choice of the sites now put forward by the Draft Town Plan. Further analysis is needed
for both of these matters prior to progressing the Town Strategy. It is very clear from the analysis
provided within these representations that many of the preferred and alternate residential / mixed used
sites are constrained and therefore the suitability and deliverability of such sites is questionable. It is
apparent that the Draft Town Plan has been prepared with little or even no cross reference to adopted
planning policies and particularly the Green Belt policies. It is also clear from these representations that
the use of Green Belt sites for residential development in Alsager is not required given the availability of
alternative sites that do not appear to have been given any consideration as part of this process and
which are located outside of the Green Belt designation.
Finally, it is clear that my clients site is suitable, available and deliverable and therefore should be given
Page 156
proper consideration within preparation process of the Town Strategy. The site offers the opportunity of
early delivery within a sustainable location that can maximise footpath linkages between the urban area
and the countryside and is demonstrably better in its potential to deliver a balanced and sustainable
community.
McCarthy and Stone are satisfied that all the Strategies for all four towns refer to the need for specialist
housing for the elderly: Alsager - provide good quality housing, with a range of types, sizes and tenures to
meet the current and future needs and aspirations of the town, including homes for older people, families
and those with specialist support requirements.
In addition, my Client welcomes the identification of two Extra Care sites within the Alsager Strategy.
However, we would like to draw attention to the process for selecting elderly persons accommodation,
which differs from other forms of housing, and highlight the location criteria recommended in the Joint
Advisory Note of the National House Builders Federation and the National Housing and Town Planning
Council entitled Sheltered Housing for Sale (2nd Edition - 1988). Whilst this relates to sheltered housing,
the same principles apply to Extra Care and Category II accommodation.
The five location criteria identified are Topography, Environment (including safety and security), Mobility,
Services and Community Facilities. The NHBF/NHTPC Advisory Note acknowledges that the "ideal" site for
sheltered housing is difficult to find. The location for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
developments need to be within easy reach of a shopping centre, public transport and other essential
services, all of which contribute to the residents maintaining an independent lifestyle. Our Client looks to
develop within a town centre location, typically on previously developed land, therefore helping to
prevent new housing on greenfield land. Consequently, McCarthy and Stone sites accord with national,
strategic and local planning policies, which all place strong emphasis on the need to recycle previously
developed land in order to safeguard greenfield sites and land in other sensitive areas.
Furthermore, providing the opportunity for elderly residents to move into more appropriate and smaller
homes, frees up existing under-occupied stock. Indeed, all McCarthy and Stone developments aim to
achieve a balance between the potentially competing objectives of development and the conservation of
the environment; thereby satisfying the goal of "sustainability".
Elderly Housing Need in Cheshire East - The Cheshire East 2010 Strategic Housing Market Assessment
(SHMA) revealed that over the next few decades, there will be a demographic shift with the number (and
proportion) of older people increasing: overall the number of people aged 65 and over is projected to
increase by 44% (or by 29,800) by 2026, and the number of 75+ residents is expected to increase by
67.9% (or by 21,600) by 2026. In addition, the proportion of households headed by an older person is
likely to increase. By 2026 local population projections suggest that 97,500 residents in Cheshire East will
be aged 65 or over (and will account for 25.7% of the total population). This compares with 67,800
residents and 18.7% of the population in 2009. It is recognised within the SHMA that a major strategic
challenge for the Council is to ensure a range of appropriate housing provision, adaptation and support
for Cheshire East’s growing older population. The SHMA also acknowledged that there is a degree of
interest in new forms of older person’s accommodation, for instance sheltered and extra care schemes as
well as open market provision. Providing a wider range of older person’s accommodation has the
potential to free-up larger family accommodation.
Page 157
The National Planning Policy Framework - It is necessary to consider the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) adopted on March 27th 2012. The NPPF states that at the heart of national policy is a
presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running
through both plan-making and decision-taking. The Ministerial foreword acknowledges the challenges the
country faces in accommodating the growing elderly population, emphasising ‘we must house a rising
population, which is living longer and wants to make new choices’, and ‘development that is sustainable
should go ahead, without delay - a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for
every plan, and every decision’. Within the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic,
social and environmental), the NPPF stipulates that the planning system should be supporting strong,
vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of
present and future generations [emphasis added].
The NPPF calls for Local Planning Authorities to seek out opportunities to meet the development needs of
their area. The Framework also emphasises that the Planning system should be pursing sustainable
development through widening the choice of high quality homes. The Framework highlights the need to
deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create
sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. Local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing
based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the
community...such as older people [emphasis added].
In regards to this consultation on these Town Strategies, it is important to recognise that the NPPF
dictates that local planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan
meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing. Consequently, reviewing
the evidence within this letter, there is a clear market need for specialist housing for the elderly within
Cheshire East Borough. The Framework advises that Local planning authorities should have a clear
understanding of housing needs in their area, and that policy should identify the scale and mix of housing
and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which meets
household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change and
addresses the need for all types of housing...including housing for the elderly [emphasis added].
Furthermore, the Framework stipulates that local policy should cater for housing demand and the scale of
housing supply necessary to meet this demand. It is therefore considered that much needed housing for
the elderly should be encouraged, and that appropriate planning policy should play a part in delivering
specialist housing to meet an evident housing need. McCarthy and Stone would like to highlight the
multiple benefits that owner-occupied private sheltered housing for the elderly provides, both to
residents and the wider community, and the increasing need for this type of specialist accommodation for
the elderly within your Borough.
It is therefore suggested that the following policy be introduced to positively support the delivery of
specialised accommodation for older people, such as sheltered housing: Development proposals for
accommodation designed specifically for the elderly will be encouraged provided that they are accessible
by public transport or a reasonable walking distance to community facilities such as shops, medical
services, places of worship and public open space.
Page 158
The remainder of the letter below provides an overview of private sheltered schemes and the benefits
they can provide to the elderly. In addition, examples and suggestions are given of how policy can support
and encourage the development of this much needed type of elderly accommodation. Benefits of Private
Sheltered Accommodation for Elderly Individuals Sheltered housing is a proven housing choice for elderly
people who wish to move into accommodation that provides comfort, security and the ability to manage
independently to a greater extent. It enables older people to remain living independently within the
community and out of institutions, whilst enjoying peace of mind and receiving the support that they
need. All McCarthy and Stone developments are specifically designed to provide housing accommodation
for elderly people, who have experienced specific life changing circumstances that prompt the move into
a specialised, purpose built, living environment. The communal facilities and specific features within the
apartments designed to meet the particular needs of these likeminded people, generally result in a much
improved quality of life. The peace of mind and contentment that this form of housing brings to its
residents should not be underestimated. The maintenance of an organised, stress-free lifestyle that will
benefit the general health and well-being of a like-minded group of people within a contained, communal
living environment is of paramount importance to the success of this form of housing, and is a desirable
end-result for society at large. McCarthy and Stone also provide (Assisted Living) Extra Care Housing
aimed at enabling independent living for the frail elderly, persons typically aged 80 and over. The
provision of suitable accommodation for the frail elderly will be of critical importance to Cheshire East
Borough, and the UK on the whole, as the Office of National Statistics projects this age group will see the
fastest rate of population growth.
The Extra Care concept provides day to day care in the form of assistance and domiciliary care tailored to
owners individual needs, enabling the frail elderly to buy in care packages to suit their needs as they
change. It provides further choice for the frail elderly allowing them to stay in their own home and
maintain a better sense of independence, enhancing their personal welfare over time rather than through
the fixed costs of a nursing or residential care with its one for all approach. Accordingly, Extra Care
accommodation possesses a number of â€˜enhanced facilities in terms of the communal facilities
available and provides a higher level of care when compared to private retirement housing. It is therefore
a different form of specialised housing for the elderly than retirement housing and provides the
increasingly elderly population with more choice and with an alternative type of accommodation to meet
their needs as frailty increases.
Conclusion - The provision of owner-occupied specialised housing for the elderly will widen the housing
choices for older persons within the Cheshire East Borough. It allows the local elderly to move into
accommodation that enables them to remain living independently within the community and out of
institutions, and therefore continue to contribute to the community, whilst enjoying peace of mind and
receiving the support that they need. McCarthy and Stone stress the need to consider addressing the
current and future housing needs of older people within your Local Authority, and for your Town
Strategies to acknowledge the role that owner-occupied sheltered housing schemes play in meeting older
person housing needs, and in providing housing choice for the wider community by freeing up valuable,
under-occupied family homes in the local area.
Page 159
British Waterways (BW) owns, manages and maintains a total of approximately 116 kilometres of canals
within Cheshire East, along with the associated towpaths, bridges, locks, reservoirs, feeder channels,
tunnels and other historic waterway infrastructure. The canal network provides a valuable resource for
recreation and leisure as well as a sustainable transport link for walking and cycling between urban areas.
For your information, from June 2012 British Waterways will move into the charitable sector and will be
known as the Canal & River Trust. British Waterways is pleased to note that the Town Strategies include
numerous objectives relating to maximising the potential of the canal infrastructure, specifically the
Macclesfield Canal in Congleton and the Trent and Mersey Canal in Middlewich, Sandbach and Alsager.
The advice contained in the Town and Country Planning Association and BW Policy Advice Note (PAN) on
Inland Waterways, published in 2009, may provide further useful information as the Town Strategies
progress. The Town Strategies refer to the need for new developments in the vicinity of a waterway to
make a positive contribution to the waterway itself, which is clearly supported by BW. It is also important
to recognise that significant new developments in the vicinity of the canal network place extra liabilities
and burdens upon the waterway infrastructure, particularly as a result of the use of the waterway and
towpath as a form of open space and as a sustainable transport route. In addition there is often an
increased burden in terms of ongoing maintenance costs for maintaining an attractive waterway setting,
for example the removal of litter from the water and maintenance of the towpath. It is therefore essential
that the necessary policy framework is established in the Cheshire East Local Plan in order to facilitate the
successful implementation of the objectives of the town strategies. In particular, the canal network must
be recognised as a specific, multi-functional form of infrastructure, and the Development Management
policy framework must ensure that any impacts of development are mitigated by developers. For
example, where developments will result in significant increases in the use of the towpath as a
sustainable transport link or as a recreational route, it will be necessary to secure appropriate developer
contributions towards improving the condition of the towpath or other waterway infrastructure. In
addition, as the authority works towards introducing the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) it may be
considered appropriate to identify particular local canal-related projects to be funded through CIL. BW is
pleased to note that the Cheshire East Local Infrastructure Plan Baseline Report (2011) provides a
comprehensive indication of the Council’s approach to inland waterways as a form of infrastructure. As
the Town Strategies and the local policy framework progresses, BW would be glad to provide further
information in relation to the condition of the waterway infrastructure, the improvement works
scheduled by BW or through other sources of funding, and the likely need for further investment in the
network through developer contributions and/or CIL.
We note the draft planning documents for Alsager, Congleton, Middlewich and Sandbach. For these
towns we suggest the following are important to promote more sustainable transport:
1. Land use policies helping to encourage local journeys on foot and by bicycle.
2. A genuine attempt with sufficient resources, both staff and capital, to develop the necessary conditions
to encourage walking and cycling including access into the heart of the town centres.
3. Using the Community Infrastructure Levy to help fund access improvements for pedestrians and
cyclists as "essential infrastructure". If it is viewed as "desirable" it will not get done.
4. Good attention to detail over individual planning development sites to ensure every benefit is achieved
for promoting more sustainable transport.
Page 160
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Cheshire Branch is responding here to Cheshire East
Council’s consultation on Town Strategies for Alsager, Congleton, Middlewich and Sandbach, a
consultation which will contribute towards Cheshire Easts Local Pan. The key points we would like to
make are these:
i. We had understood that DCLG funding had been awarded for neighbourhood planning exercises.
The outputs are instead ‘town strategies’ which do not appear to have been developed with the
mix of constituent stakeholders expected
ii. The third wave of neighbourhood plans (that included Congleton, Middlewich and Sandbach) was
confirmed by government in June last year. (Alsager was in wave two). The consultations on the
outcomes was announced in a CEC press release in February this year.
iii. A public consultation period of just one month for an exercise which will establish the future of
these market towns for the next generation is short.
iv. The maps which are a key part of the consultation are not easy to follow.
v. The electronic consultation makes it difficult to feed in a strategic response.
vi. We cannot see evidence of consideration having been given to a number of factors:
a. sequential land use
b. environmental capacity including flood plains and transport implications
c. nature conservation areas
d. settlement patterns
e. vistas from developed and undeveloped areas
f. local landscape designations such as Areas of Special County Value
g. the grade of agricultural land
h. DEFRAs 2011 White Paper The Natural Choice
vii. Some of the development aspirations are on or would impact on Green Belt
viii. Some of the development aspirations would be on playing fields
ix. In the case of the Congleton Strategy, one of the development proposals (A) appears to impact on a
nature reserve and another (G) seems to impact on a Country Park
x. In the case of the Middlewich Strategy, one of the development proposals (E3) appears to impact
on natural and semi-natural urban greenspace
National Planning Policy Framework
A key issue which CPRE nationally campaigned on has been included in the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF). It has recognised the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. It has also
acknowledged explicitly that using previously developed (brownfield) land should be a core planning
objective and Local Planning Authorities are required to protect the Green Belt (Core Planning
Principles, paragraph 17, pages 5 & 6). The NPPF recognises the 2005 UK Sustainable Development
Strategy (paragraph 5, page 2) and the need for equal weight to be placed on economic, social and
environmental roles (para. 7, p. 2). And it demands very detailed investigations relating to both town
centres and sports and recreation areas. On town centres it requires local planning authorities to adopt
a sequential land use approach, work in close collaboration with neighbouring authorities (paragraph
160, page 39) and carry out detailed work comparing its centres with each other and understanding
their capacity (paragraph 161). Additionally, the NPPF states that Local Plans should: promote the
retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages such sports venues
(paragraph 28, page 9). It requires a detailed assessment to be carried out of sports and recreation
needs (paragraphs 73 and 171). It says: Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land,
including playing fields, should not be built on unless: an assessment has been undertaken which has
clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements or the loss resulting from
Page 161
the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and
quality in a suitable location or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the
needs for which clearly outweigh the loss(paragraph 74, page 18)
Alsager - Due to the close proximity of the town, any large housing development in this area could
potentially impact on Staffordshire schools. There are a significant number of Staffordshire parents who
have made a first preference for an Alsager primary school and many more who have made a second or
lower preference; as places have not yet been allocated we do not know the likely number of pupils that
will obtain a place at the relevant schools. We are unable to comment on the number of Staffordshire
pupils currently on roll at Alsager primary schools as this information is held by Cheshire East. The
numbers of Cheshire East primary aged children that are currently attending Staffordshire schools located
in the area surrounding Alsager is small. There are relatively small numbers of Cheshire East secondary
aged pupils that have opted to attend Staffordshire schools located in the area surrounding Alsager
historically. However, there appears to be a number of secondary aged Staffordshire pupils that will be
offered places at Alsager High School for Year 7 intakes in September 2012 and this appears to be the
case for historic intakes also. We are unable to confirm actual numbers of Staffordshire pupils on roll at
Alsager High School as this information is held by Cheshire East. A large scale housing development could
impact on the current patterns of pupil movement between the two authorities, especially in relation to
secondary education. We note that the strategy document states under point 8.3 that in terms of
infrastructure required to be provided through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), education
provision is ‘Desirable Infrastructure’ as opposed to ‘Important’ or ‘Essential’. We understand this as
meaning Alsager schools have sufficient places for the expected number of pupils generated by the
proposed developments. Considering the preferred sites only, this would total 1,035 additional new
homes in Alsager. Based on Staffordshire County Council’s standard formula of 3 pupils generated per
school year group per 100 houses, this would require the equivalent of a new primary school, 155 high
school places and 31 post-16 places. We would wish to be consulted on any residential development in
this area due to the impact that any reduction in available places in Alsager could have on Staffordshire
schools.
General Points The consultation has been undertaken for a period of 4 weeks, would it not have been
more appropriate to consult along the accepted principal of 6 weeks for planning documents. The scope
and role of these documents is unclear. They seem to be evidence base documents for the Core Strategy,
but they seem to be quite prescriptive on levels of development, especially housing for Congleton and
Alsager. The Core Strategy Issues and Options published in 2010 considered various development options
and potential levels of development, but no subsequent analysis of this document presenting findings or
showing what the proposed scale of development or preferred option is has been produced. It therefore
seems premature to introduce housing numbers specifically for towns through this document. The
evidence trail between the Core Strategy Issues and Options and the housing numbers which underpin
these documents is not clear. To conclude Stoke-On-Trent City Council and Newcastle-under-Lyme
Borough Council are concerned at the levels of new housing proposed in the town strategies and how
these proposals link to the emerging Core Strategy for Cheshire East. It is not considered that sufficient
consideration is given to the impact to the on-going regeneration of the North Staffordshire conurbation
Page 162
and how major greenfield residential development could seriously impact regeneration. Furthermore we
do not consider that sufficient consideration has been given to the linkages between South Cheshire and
North Staffordshire, in particular to the role of Congleton. Finally we are concerned that high levels of
out-of-centre office development could undermine our own Core Strategy objectives.
So much consultation and so little time! We welcome the 4 recent Draft Town Strategies (being for
Alsager, Congleton, Middlewich and Sandbach) with the prospect of others to follow, primarily because,
in truth, these documents finally drill down to spatial planning at a local level and provide details of
potential areas of growth which, as a Developer, is what we seek from the development plan system.
6 -Clearly, potential housing sites need to be viable to be deliverable. First, a question: will sites be
allocated in these Town Strategies or will that be for the Site Allocations DPD following adoption of the
Cheshire East Core Strategy? We suspect the latter and, if so, each Town Strategy will need to be clear on
this and set out its relationship with the Local Development Framework (LDF) / Local Plan. Given the slow
progress of the Core Strategy, as well as the expression of local planning within these Draft Town
Strategies, we suggest that sufficient weight be attached to H1 and H2 in the determination of planning
applications prior to the Site Allocations DPD. Any emerging policies within the Town Strategy will need to
accord with Government guidance on CIL and make clear their relationship with CIL and the LDF. In the
meantime, we will continue to liaise with the LPA and consultees (including the Town Council) as part of
any S106 negotiations in support of our planning applications. For the other 3 settlements (Alsager,
Sandbach and Congleton), our comments are less specific, although we remain interested in all of these.
First, as existing and significant settlements with a range of services and facilities, all 4 Towns are
sustainable locations for new residential development. Each Strategy should therefore respond positively
to this fact and identify sufficient potential areas / sites accordingly. Those areas / sites must be suitable,
viable, developable and deliverable and we can advise in detail on these as required. Clearly in the
current market the delivery of PDL sites can be challenging in terms of viability. We ask that each
document accords with the recent National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which is now material and
accorded significant weight. This includes Para 22 on employment sites and allocations, plus Section 6 on
the delivery of new homes. In every case, the viability of potential areas / sites is a key consideration in
taking them forward as potential allocations either in each Strategy or in a future Allocations DPD. For all
of these reasons, and as with Middlewich, we consider there to be a robust planning case for the release
of greenfield urban extensions in these settlements, along with support for the redevelopment of
employment land for much needed new homes.
Page 163
Network Rail is the statutory undertaker responsible for maintaining and operating the country’s railway
infrastructure and associated estate. Network Rail owns, operates, maintains and develops the main rail
network. This includes the railway tracks, stations, signalling systems, bridges, tunnels, level crossings and
viaducts. Please could you ensure that the following comments are included within the Cheshire East Sandbach-Middlewich-Congleton-Alsager Spatial Planning Consultation. Car Park Extensions Please note
that car park extension schemes are currently being progressed for Congleton Railway Station and
Sandbach Railway Station. Asset Protection The Cheshire East - Sandbach-Middlewich-Congleton-Alsager
Spatial Planning Consultation includes many sites proposed for potential development which are either
next to or very close to Network Rail land and the operational railway. Without adequate asset protection
measures any of these proposals could impact upon the safety, operation and integrity of the railway. In
light of this we would request that any land that is near to or next to Network Rail land and infrastructure
and the operational railway is the subject of pre-application consultation between the developer and
Network Rails Asset Protection Team.
I attach a copy of the asset protection measures we would request to see actioned by any developer.
Please note that Network Rail reserves the right to object to any proposal it believes will have an impact
upon its infrastructure and land.
Stations - There must be close co-operation between developers, the council and Network Rail regarding
provision of a station at Middlewich and upgrades of stations at Alsager, Congleton and Sandbach. Any
works including Network Rail land will require all necessary consents and legal obligations to be met by
the developer/council and any works would be subject to Network Rail approval.
Level Crossings - Development proposals affecting the safety of level crossings in the Cheshire East
council area is an extremely important consideration for Network Rail and emerging planning policy to
address especially in light of the many sites in the Cheshire East - Sandbach-Middlewich-CongletonAlsager Spatial Planning Consultation. The impact from development can result in increases, often
significant, in the vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic utilising a crossing which in turn can have impacts
upon safety and service provision. As a result of increased patronage over crossings, Network Rail could
be forced to reduce train line speed in direct correlation to the increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic
using a crossing. This would have severe consequences for the timetabling of trains and would also
effectively frustrate any future train service improvements. In this regard, we request that the potential
impacts from development effecting Network Rails level crossings are specifically addressed through the
Cheshire East - Sandbach-Middlewich-Congleton-Alsager Spatial Planning Consultation. There have been
instances whereby Network Rail has not been consulted as a statutory undertaker where a proposal has
impacted on a level crossing. As such, we strongly believe that the importance of Level Crossing safety
warrants a specific Policy included in the Cheshire East - Sandbach-Middlewich-Congleton-Alsager Spatial
Planning Consultation which will help to elevate the importance of Level Crossings within the
development management and planning process.
We request that the policy confirms that:
1. The Cheshire East Council have a statutory responsibility under planning legislation (Schedule 5 (f)(ii) of
the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order, 2010) to consult the
statutory rail undertaker where a proposal for development is 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;
2. As a first principle, Network Rail would seek to close Level Crossings where possible.
3. Any planning application which may increase the level of pedestrian and/or vehicular usage at a level
crossing should be supported by a full Transport Assessment assessing impact and mitigation measures
including assessment of closure; and
4. The developer is required to fund any qualitative improvements required to the level crossing
identified as a direct result of the development proposed. NB: The Network Rail Level Crossings Policy has
been adopted in principle by West Lancashire Council as part of their Local Plan Policy and can be viewed
on Page 134 Section C as follows, Developments adjacent to, or affecting, rail lines (including resulting in a
Page 164
material increase or change of character of the traffic using a rail crossing of a railway) will only be
permitted with the agreement of Network Rail.
In addition the Network Rail Level Crossings Policy has been submitted and is being considered as a new
policy for the Staffordshire Moorlands LDF Revised Submission Core Strategy and is set to be incorporated
within the pre-publication version of the Lancaster Local Plan DPD. Developer Contributions Where
growth areas or significant housing allocations are identified close to existing rail infrastructure it is
essential that the potential impacts of this are assessed.
Many stations and routes are already operating close to capacity and a significant increase in patronage
may create the need for upgrades to the existing infrastructure including improved signalling, passing
loops, car parking, improved access arrangements or platform extensions. As Network Rail is a publicly
funded organisation with a regulated remit it would not be reasonable to require Network Rail to fund rail
improvements necessitated by commercial development. It is therefore appropriate to require developer
contributions or CIL contributions to fund such railway improvements; it would also be appropriate to
require contributions towards rail infrastructure where they are directly required as a result of the
proposed development and where the acceptability of the development depends on access to the rail
network.
PPG13 states that councils should, take into account the potential for changing overall travel patterns, for
instance by improving the sustainability of existing developments through a fully co-ordinated approach
of development plan allocations and transport improvements. And also, Where development can only
take place with improvements to public transport services, a contribution from the developer (payable to
the local authority) would be appropriate. PPG3 states that councils should, development in locations
with good public transport accessibility and/or by means other than the private car and where it can
readily and viably draw its energy supply from decentralised energy supply systems based on renewable
and low-carbon forms of energy supply, or where there is clear potential for this to be realised. Also, the
availability and capacity of, and accessibility to, existing major strategic infrastructure, including public
and other transport services, and/or feasibility of delivering the required level of new infrastructure to
support the proposed distribution of development. Additionally, Accessibility of proposed development
to existing local community facilities, infrastructure and services, including public transport. The location
of housing should facilitate the creation of communities of sufficient size and mix to justify the
development of, and sustain, community facilities, infrastructure and services. Councils should also be
aware of, The current and future levels of accessibility, particularly public transport accessibility. The
likely impact and level of improvements required will be specific to each station and each development
meaning standard charges and formulae may not be appropriate. Therefore in order to fully assess the
potential impacts, and the level of developer contribution required, it is essential that where a Transport
Assessment is submitted in support of a planning application that this quantifies in detail the likely
impacts on the rail network. To ensure that developer contributions can deliver appropriate
improvements to the rail network we would recommend that the Cheshire East - Sandbach-MiddlewichCongleton-Alsager Spatial Planning Consultation include provisions for rail. The policy should include the
following: A requirement for developer contributions to deliver improvements to the rail network,
including any development that occurs as a consequence of the Cheshire East - Sandbach-MiddlewichCongleton-Alsager Spatial Planning Consultation.
A requirement for Transport Assessments to take cognisance of impacts to existing rail infrastructure to
allow any necessary developer contributions towards rail to be calculated. A commitment to consult
Network Rail where development may impact on the rail network and may require rail infrastructure
improvements. In order to be reasonable these improvements would be restricted to a local level and
would be necessary to make the development acceptable. We would not seek contributions towards
major enhancement projects which are already programmed as part of Network Rail’s remit.
Improvements to rail transport contribute to the public good and railway developments should not be
expected to support other public projects. Our infrastructure projects and station developments and
improvements support regeneration, increase the attractiveness of settlements and benefit communities.
Page 165
Over the last 1-2 years MMU have progressively moved out of their Alsager Campus and now only use the
facility for sports use. The University has invested Â£20 million in their Crewe Campus, raising the profile
of the Town and standard of education offered. This move has left the Alsager Campus under-utilised and
appropriate for redevelopment. This redevelopment opportunity is acknowledged in the Draft Alsager
Town Strategy. It is important to note that a live planning application is still pending determination by
Cheshire East Council for a mix of uses on the Alsager Campus. The description of development on the
application form describes the proposed development as, demolition of existing buildings, site clearance
and redevelopment of the application site for a mixed-use development to include housing, extra care
housing, employment (Class B1), small scale neighbourhood retail, community uses and formal and
informal open space.
Gladman support the fact that in all documents there is a clear indication that all of the towns need to
grow in order to deliver both employment and residential development that provides for the needs of the
community. Each document recognises that the need for market and affordable housing, the provision of
key infrastructure, the improvement of the town centres and the attraction of new investment is critical
to the continued success of the towns and this is also supported. However, there is a need to confirm the
status that these document will have within the planning system once they are completed. It is Gladman's
opinion that they are not Neighbourhood Development Plans as they were not prepared following the
neighbourhood planning regulations and have, to all intense and purposes, been local authority led in
consultation with a limited number of stakeholders. They should be treated as background evidence for
the preparation of the Core Strategy for Cheshire East and be subjected, through that process to proper
assessment, consultation and thorough testing. In fact, these documents are putting the cart before the
horse, especially in terms of identifying housing requirements and potential preferred sites, as these
issues should be properly determined through the Core Strategy and other appropriate DPDs.
The Core Strategy is still at an early stage and has certainly not indicated to date, the required level of
housing that is suitable for Cheshire East nor the appropriate geographical split of that housing
requirement across the key settlements in the borough. It is essential that the housing requirement for
the borough is properly tested through the Core Strategy process and, once adopted the Core Strategy
informs the preparation of the town strategies rather than the other way around. Whilst Gladman
support the fact that several of the documents have suggested that the level of housing growth within the
settlements should be based on the high level of growth that was promoted through the Issues and
Options report on the Core Strategy (i.e. 1600 units per annum), it is considered that based on the
evidence contained in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) the requirement for housing
should be even greater with an annual requirement of 4858 dwellings per annum being quoted within the
SHMA. It is therefore even more critical that the decisions are taken through the Core Strategy and are
thoroughly tested through this process.
A further concern that relates to all of the documents relates to the process that they went through
during preparation. There is no clear indication in any of the documents as to the make-up of the panel of
stakeholders that helped to prepare them. There is significant concern that these bodies were not
representative of the full range of local community interests and in some cases, involved an unbalanced
cross-section of interests that has clearly influenced the final content of the documents. In addition, if
these documents are eventually to be used to inform the preparation of the Core Strategy then they
should take a logical approach to potential site identification that is clear, well documented and
transparent. An analysis of the potential sites should be undertaken that looks at issues of suitability,
achievability and availability before suggesting the most suitable sites to be promoted through the Core
Strategy or other DPD. It is essential that the capacities of these sites are realistically estimated and
reflected in the documents. This includes making realistic judgements on the deliverable area of sites,
taking into consideration any constraints or policy considerations such as the provision of open space and
key infrastructure and ensuring that the final figures are representative of current building densities and
Page 166
build rates that are being delivered by house builders in the current market (Le. family homes of 25-30
dwellings per hectare). A final point that relates to all documents is that it is currently unclear as to how
the documents have been prepared in the light of the evidence base that has been collected for the Core
Strategy. There seems to be no clear and logical progression from the evidence set out in key documents
such as the SHMA, SHLAA etc and the content of the final draft town strategies. It should be made clear,
in all documents, how the final decisions have been determined by the evidence that is available.
However, CWT is disappointed that there is no mention of wildlife and green space resources in or near
the town; for example: Cranberry Moss LNR & Cherry Lane Carr Woodland SBI Although green space
network enhancement forms part of the vision it features only as the lowest category in the proposed
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) priority list; expenditure on amenity spaces is ‘desirable’. There is no
further mention of green infrastructure apart from in the vision.
Development Principles It is stated that the Council will provide Development Principles for how the
potential development sites may be carried out. We confirm on behalf of Raleigh Hall Properties that we
would be very pleased to work with the Council in drawing up these Development Principles for
Alternative Development Area E, Fanny's Croft . The more flexible approach to the types of development
that are acceptable within the town centre listed and explained in the following paragraphs of Section 7
are supported and which should secure the vibrancy, prosperity, distinctiveness and quality of the town
centre sought by the Council. Infrastructure Priorities The list of potential infrastructure requirements
identified by the stakeholder panel is acknowledged, as well as the Community Infrastructure levy (ClL) to
charge new developments to help provide the infrastructure required.
CONCLUSION The Draft Town Strategy is a cogent and well constructed document setting out the vision
for Alsager and the potential development options. We are pleased to see that land at Fanny's Croft,
Audley Road, Alsager has been identified as an Alternative Development Area (Site E). We consider that
the sustainability credentials of the site, based on very close links to the town centre, railway station I bus
exchange and social and educational facilities justify elevating Site E to the status of a "Residential
Development Option ", and taking preference in terms of development to the other options listed. In
reality, all of the residential development options and the Alternative Development Sites might well be
required over the Plan period to 2030 since their residential development capacity estimated by the Draft
Town Strategy totals some 1810 new dwellings, and that includes the mixed use options where they
deliver residential development. This figure is not a great deal higher than the upper end of the range
postulated for Alsager by the Council i.e., between 690 and 1600 homes, and much less than the figure
we suggest, based on drawing a parallel with Housing Market Partnership discussions, of some 2500 new
homes. The National Planning Policy Framework conveys a presumption in favour of sustainable
development and the Fanny's Croft site is undeniably an extremely sustainable site.
Alsager has potential for a number of large scale developments, and whilst there is currently relatively
good air quality we would like to ensure it remains that way.
Page 167
Persimmon does not support the Alsager Town Strategy in its current form. Alsager Town Strategy
Consultation - Rhodes Field, Crewe Road Land at the above location is under the control of Persimmon
Homes. As you will be aware, we have promoted this site through the Local Development Framework
(LDF) for a number of years and consider it to represent a suitable location for new housing in the
immediate future. Persimmon Homes has held an interest in the land for a number of years and during
this time we have discussed various development proposals with the Council. We have, wherever
possible, tried to assist the Council by supplementing our representations with robust technical
background work and can confirm that the site is suitable, available and deliverable. You will appreciate
that we have sought to follow the longstanding advice of the Council by promoting our site through the
LDF. More recently, however, we have become concerned that a number of planning applications for
housing have been submitted on greenfield sites in Cheshire East which are, in our opinion, less suited to
development than land off Crewe Road. Whilst we note that these have been resisted by the local
planning authority they are now under consideration by the Planning Inspectorate and High Court.
Area C - Alsager Football Ground I have seen 6/7 year olds out running, playing ball. Removal of these
pitches would force them to have to cross Lawton Road, then Sandbach Road to get to the nearest
football pitch at Milton Park. What about the Governments incentives on getting people active are these
kids going to be the diabetics of the future? I challenge CEC to come down to Alsager pitches of an
afternoon and the weekend. For a few hours just to see the diversity of people using walking, cycling etc
on this land. Given the large number of houses already surrounding this area I feel more housing will
satiate the area and provide yet more kids with nowhere and nothing to do.
Page 168

Draft Alsager Town Strategy: Full Report of Consultation Contents

Transcription

Similar documents

ALSAGER - Crewe Road (7) - Co-op

ALSAGER - Crewe Road (5-7)

ALSAGER - Crewe Road (5)

Tampines Town Council`s Audited Financial Statements, Auditors

Sembawang Town Council`s Audited Financial Statements, Auditors

easyhiker.co.uk – 17settembre 2015 D for Domodossola By Michael

POOTATUCK LAND COMPANY SHEET 6

Postcard - Where Entrepreneurship and Business Opportunties

17th CAPE TOWN Jazz-fest-2016-JHB

The W o rld`s Largest Fo od Fig ht