Chapel-en-le-Frith Neighbourhood Plan: Supporting Evidence

Index

Section 1: Housing Appendices

  1. Survey Results for Suitable and Unsuitable Sites
  2. List of sites with Planning Permission for Housing
  3. Analysis of Homes for Sale and Rent in Chapel-en-le-Frith, January 2013
  4. Housing Needs in the Parish: an analysis of the available census and other data and issues which it raises for the Neighbourhood Plan.
  5. The Housing Target: the target for the number of homes which will need to be built in the Parish over the next 15 years.
  6. The Need for Affordable Housing
  7. Sustainability Appraisal of potential Housing Sites
  8. Sustainability Appraisal – Criteria for Assessment

Housing Appendix 1 – Survey Results for Suitable and Unsuitable Sites

 

Suitable

Unsuitable

Net %

Rank

Brownfield Sites

Votes

%

Votes

%

Surplus land at Federal Mogul

764

80%

88

9%

+ 71%

1

Dorma site at Whitehough

705

74%

117

12%

+ 62%

2

Greenfield Sites
Dove Holes- 2 sites at end of Halsteads

348

37%

365

38%

- 1%

3

Land between railway & Long Lane

257

27%

478

50%

- 23%

4

Manchester Road-next to Whitestones

221

23%

481

50%

- 27%

5

Off Homestead Way

187

20%

463

49%

- 29%

6

Behind Crossings/

Manchester Road

129

14%

583

61%

- 47%

7

Behind High School playing fields

102

11%

601

63%

- 52%

8

Total Votes

3,881

 

3,703

Sites which we have since been informed are unavailable for development have been excluded from these results.

For a full report of the survey results, see the separate report.

Housing Appendix 2:

List of Sites with Planning Permission for Additional Housing

The following sites within the Parish of Chapel-en-le-Frith have received Planning Permission for development of new homes, but the houses have yet to be built:

Site

(In Chapel-en-le-Frith unless otherwise stated)

Planning Application

Reference

Number of Additional Homes Date of Decision
Land adjacent to 37 Beresford Road 2010/0607 1 01/11
8 Market Street 2010/0259 1 8/10
Manchester Road 2011/0282 104 8/12 (appeal)
Jolly Carter Inn, Buxton Rd 2011/0659 2 1/12
Hayfield Road East 2011/0676 4 6/12
137 Manchester Road 2011/0714 1 3/12
Capital Grange Garage, High Street (High Peak 4 x 4) 2012/0205 10 apartments 7/12
Roebuck House 2012/0245 2 apartments 6/12
Rear, Hayfield Road East 2012/0280 4 x 3-bed dwellings 7/12
Roebuck Place 2012/0297 14 7/12
Barn adjacent to Parkfield Lodge, Bankhall Drive 2012/0621 1 01/13
Kelsa Trucks – conversion 2011/0504 6 apartments 01/13 (appeal)
Permissions at February 2013 150
Adjacent to rail embankment, Long Lane 2012/0678 66 04/13
Aspincroft Garage, Town End –

conversion

2012/0426 3 05/13 (appeal)
Former Dorma site, Whitehough 182 06/13 (appeal)
Federal Mogul 2012/0408 164 06/13
Total at June 2013   565

All applications are valid for 3 years from the date of the decision

Appendix 3:

Housing for Sale and Rent in Chapel-en-le-Frith

For Sale – Per Rightmove – 10 January 2013

Type Bedrooms Number

Available

Price Range Number Available at Lower Prices
House 1 1 – 0.5%
House 2 37 – 20% £115,000 – £275,000 14 under £125,000
House 3 88 – 48% £115,000 – £415,000 13 under £135,000
House 4 + 60 – 32% £165,000 – £795,000 9 under £200,000
Apartment 1 3 £100,000 – £120,000
Apartment 2 5 £80,000 – £120,000
Maisonette 3 1 £120,000

Total Houses for Sale = 186

Total Apartments for Sale = 9

Housing for Rent in Chapel-en-le-Frith: per Rightmove – 10 January 2013

Type Bedrooms Number

Available

Price Range

pcm

Number Available at Lower Prices
House 1 0
House 2 2 – 20% £575 – £595 2 under £600
House 3 4 – 40% £595 – £650 2 under £600
House 4 + 4 – 40% £695 – £1,500 1 under £700
Apartment 1 1 £495 1 under £500
Apartment 2 1 £500 1 at £500
Apartment 3 0

Total houses for rent = 10

Total flats for rent = 2


Appendix 4:  Housing Needs in the Parish

9,270 people live in Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish.  At 2010, they comprised:

  • 1,615 children aged under 16 (17.5%)
  • 5,795 people of working age (62.5%)
  • 1,855 people aged over 65 (20%)

The proportion of people over pension age (20%) is considerably higher than the average for High Peak (17.3%) and for the UK as a whole (16.5%).

At the 2001 census there were 3,610 households in the Parish *.  The amount of each type of housing in the Parish is:

  • 1,140 detached houses (30.8%)
  • 1,515 semi-detached houses (40.8%)
  • 860 terraced houses (23.2%)
  • 190 flats (3.1%)

The proportion of detached and semi-detached houses in the Parish (a total of 71.6%) is far higher than those in the rest of High Peak which has a total of 54% (23.5% detached houses and 30.5% semi-detached).

This is reflected in the relatively few houses in the Parish which are in the lowest Council Tax Band.  There are 10.4% such houses in Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish compared to 20.6% in High Peak and 24.8% in the UK as a whole.

The Parish contains a relatively low number of homes for social renting.  In 2009 there were 264 properties for social rent – just 7.3%.  At the 2001 census, 13.3% of houses in High Peak were for social rent and 19.3% in the UK as a whole.

There is a considerable need for affordable homes for local people.  The Council House waiting list in December 2012 included 205 households who currently live in the Parish – 110 in immediate need of a home, with a further 95 households likely to fall into immediate need in the near future.

 Considerations for the Neighbourhood Plan

 The Neighbourhood Plan will need to consider several important housing issues raised by this data:

  1. The housing needs of older people
  2. The lack of low-cost housing available to buy in the Parish
  3. The need for considerable numbers of homes for people who live locally and are unable to afford to buy a house.

*Data on households from the 2011 census was not available at the time of writing

Appendix 5:  The Housing Target

Local housing needs are well reflected in the views that local people gave to Chapel Vision.

In the four initial meetings in March 2011, which over 300 people attended and where the community gave their views, the most frequent comments about housing were:

  • People liked being part of a small, friendly community.
  • Housing should meet the needs of local people and be more affordable
  • They wanted to see small-scale housing developed on brown-field sites.
  • They did not want to see large-scale housing on Greenfield sites.

Responses to the survey concerning the number of homes to be built were:

Suggested Number of new Homes

Votes

%

Just enough new homes to meet local need (predicted around 500)

543

60%

Less than this

250

27%

600

54

6%

700 or more

62

7%

Total

909

See the separate document for the full results of the survey of local people

Bearing in mind that there is already Planning Permission for 135* homes in the Parish, it is helpful that the Borough Council agreed to set a target for an additional 400 homes in the Parish.

This is the target to be developed over the next 15 years – an average of 27 new homes per year until 2028.  If the 400 homes are built in less than 15 years, further development in the Parish should be resisted until another Plan is developed for 2028 onwards.

Chapel Vision believe that this target can almost all be met by building homes on sites which have already been developed – brownfield sites.

As long as all available brownfield sites are used, only one or two smaller Greenfield sites will be required.  However, if the available brownfield sites are not used for housing, especially the large sites at Dorma or Federal Mogul, it will be necessary to build houses on substantial Greenfield areas in order to meet the target.

* See list of sites with current Planning Permission at Appendix 2

Appendix 6: The need for Affordable Housing

As was noted in appendix 4, Chapel-en-le-Frith has only around half of High Peak’s proportion of low-cost houses.  There are only 10.4% houses in the lowest Council Tax Band in Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish, compared to 20.6% in High Peak and 24.8% in the UK as a whole.

The Parish also contains a relatively low number of homes for social renting.  In 2009 there were 264 properties for social rent – just 7.3%.  Of these, 121 were classed as sheltered housing or for people aged 55+.  At the 2001 census, 13.3% of houses in High Peak were for social rent and 19.3% in the UK as a whole.

There is a considerable need for affordable homes for local people.  The Council House Waiting List in December 2012 included 205 households who currently live in the Parish – 110 in immediate need of a home, with a further 95 households likely to fall into immediate need in the near future.

This is an increase from the 148 households identified as being in housing need by the Affordable Housing Survey for Chapel-en-le-Frith in December 2009.  This is not surprising, given the continuing economic climate.  However, the Affordable Housing Survey for Dove Holes in March 2012 reported that there was no need for additional social housing in Dove Holes.

The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework states that Local Plans have to “meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing”.  This Plan therefore seeks, as far as possible, to meet these needs by providing for substantial levels of social housing in Chapel-en-le-Frith.

Whilst no affordable homes have been built in the Parish for over 6 years, the development at Crossings Road, which was approved on appeal in 2012, will provide 32 affordable homes.

However, simply in order to meet demand for affordable homes in the near future, the Plan will need to seek to provide approximately 170 further affordable homes.

High Peak Borough Council’s current requirement for affordable homes to be provided by developers is 30%.  The level of affordable housing required in Chapel-en-le-Frith, just to meet current demand, is 170 homes out of the target of 400 new homes to be built over 15 years – a total of 42.5%.

Chapel-en-le-Frith will therefore require a higher proportion of new homes to be social housing, than the current proportion in the rest of High Peak.

However, we have planned for most development to take place on brownfield sites at Federal Mogul and Dorma.  It is accepted that brownfield sites are generally much more expensive to develop than Greenfield sites, and these two sites will require considerable work to render them fit for building new houses.

Planning Permission has been granted for these sites, with 30% affordable housing on the Dorma site and just 21% (35 homes) on the Federal Mogul site, due to the additional costs of development.

In order to provide the affordable homes required in Chapel-en-le-Frith, it is therefore proposed that Greenfield sites which are developed should contribute 50% affordable housing.  Greenfield sites are much cheaper to develop than brownfield sites.  If 30% affordable housing is viable on brownfield sites, 50% is viable on Greenfield sites.

Now that the Government has changed the definition of affordable housing to 80% of market rents, affordable homes are much more viable to develop.  If a Greenfield site cannot deliver 50% affordable housing, it should not be considered.

The proportions would apply to sites of the same size as in High Peak Borough Council’s policy:

25 units or more:     30% on brownfield sites / 50% on Greenfield sites

5 – 24 units:              20% on brownfield sites / 33% on Greenfield sites

The planned provision of affordable homes is therefore:

Total Homes         Affordable Homes

Site with Planning Permission – 30%

Crossings Road                                                      107                             32

Large Brownfield Sites – 30%

Federal Mogul                                              164                                         35

Dorma at Whitehough                                182                                         54

346

Town Centre Sites for Accessible Homes

Pickford Place – 30%                                   30                                           9

Park Road Factory/bungalow – 20%         12                                           2

42

Greenfield Site – 50%

Long Lane fields 1 & 2                                              66                            33

___                             ___

Total                                                                           561                             165

These homes will be to meet the total demand until 2028.

Housing Appendix 8: Chapel Vision Sustainability Appraisal of Housing Sites – Criteria for Assessment

SA Objective Number

 

Does the site …?

 

Positive/Negative impact

Importance of objective

High/Medium/Low

 

Score

1

Support economic development and new employment opportunities? Positive: The site provides employment. [2 points]

Neutral: Employment is neither provided nor lost [1 point].

Negative: There is a loss of land that currently contributes to employment. [0 points]

High: score is trebled.

2

Contribute to support for vibrant market town and large settlement centres? Positive: The site is within 15 minutes walk of a centre and will contribute to the vitality of the centre. [2 points]

Neutral: The site is within a 15 minute bus or car journey of a centre and will have limited positive impact on the vitality of the centre.  [1 point]

Negative: The site is over 15 minutes travel by bus or car from a settlement centre and is likely to detract from maintaining vibrant centres. [0 points]

Medium: score is doubled.

3

Maintain air quality and help to minimise noise and light pollution? Positive: No positive impacts scored.

Neutral: The site is within or adjacent to settlement and in an area without high levels of existing traffic congestion.  [1 point]

Negative: The site is remote from a settlement centre and/or in an area of existing high traffic congestion where development is likely to make a disproportionate contribution to air, noise and light pollution. [0 points]

Low: score is not changed.

4

Protect and enhance favourable conditions on SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and other designated wildlife sites? Positive: The site is over 400m away from an international, national or locally designated site, but its development will enable improvements to be made to the condition of a designated site. [2 points]

Neutral: Development of the site is likely to make neither a positive nor a negative impact on the condition of an international, national, or locally designated wildlife site.  [1 point]

Negative: The site is designated, or is within 100m of a local wildlife site or within 400m of a nationally or internationally designated site where significant impacts could result. [0 points]

Medium: score is doubled.

SA Objective Number

 

Does the site …?

 

Positive/Negative impact

Importance of objective

High/Medium/Low

 

Score

5

Protect and enhance biodiversity, geodiversity and support the development of linked green spaces? Positive: The site has neither nature conservation designations nor known features of high conservation value but is over 8ha in size, enabling development to deliver nature conservation enhancement. [2 points]

Neutral: The site has neither nature conservation designations nor known features of high conservation value (although there may be trees, hedges or small ponds) and development will not deliver biodiversity enhancement.  [1 point]

Negative: There are habitats within the site that may make a significant local contribution to biodiversity and/or there is potential for protected species or species of conservation importance to be present. [0 points]

 

Medium: score is doubled.

6

Conserve and enhance town and village-scape quality and heritage assets along with their settings? Positive: The site is within settlement and will make a positive contribution to the existing community [2 points]

Neutral: The site is adjacent to settlement and its development will have neither a positive nor negative impact on the existing quality of the built environment [1 point]

Negative: The site involves the loss of buildings or gardens designated as having historic interest, or would have an adverse impact on their setting; and/or development risks an adverse impact on a conservation area or its setting. [0 points]

 

Medium: score is doubled.

7

Protect and enhance the character and appearance of the landscape and other natural assets? Positive: The site is previously developed land [2 points]

Neutral: The site is not previously developed, but it is within  settlement [1 point]

Negative: The site is greenfield, in the countryside and risks an adverse impact on landscape character or a natural asset (eg pond, river, reservoir, woodland) [0 points]

 

High: score is trebled.

SA Objective Number

 

Does the site …?

 

Positive/Negative impact

Importance of objective

High/Medium/Low

 

Score

8

Help to minimise the risk of flooding? Positive: The site is in flood zone 1 and there are no recorded incidents of surface water sewer flooding on site, or within 100m of the site [2 points]

Neutral: The site is in flood zone 1 but there are incidents of surface water sewer flooding on site, or within 100m of the site [1 point]

Negative: The site is partially or wholly in flood zone 2 or flood zone 3 [0 points]

 

High: score is trebled.

9

Help to reduce the number of journeys made by car? Positive: The site is within 10 minutes walk of a town centre, and 5 minutes walk from a bus stop or a train station [2 points]

Neutral: The site is within 15 minutes walk of a settlement, centre and within ten minutes walk of a bus stop or train station [1 point]

Negative: The site is more than 15 minutes walk from any centre or bus stop [0 points]

 

Medium: score is doubled.

10

Improve access to jobs, services and facilities? Positive: Several services and facilities can be accessed within 20 minutes by bus and/or within a 10 minute walk [2 points]

Neutral: There are limited facilities that can be accessed within 20 minutes by bus and/or within a 10 minute walk [1 point]

Negative: There are no services or facilities that can be reached on foot or by a bus journey of 20 minutes or less [0 points]

 

Medium: score is doubled.

11

Enable provision of affordable housing Positive: The site has potential to deliver affordable homes [2 points]

Neutral: No neutral impact scored.

Negative: Development economics or other factors mean that the site is unlikely to deliver affordable homes [0 points]

 

High: score is trebled.

12

Provide opportunities for people to participate in cultural, leisure and recreational activities Positive: The site is within 5 minutes walk of an area of publicly accessible open space and 25 minutes walk from a cultural or leisure facility [2 points]

Neutral: The site is within 10 minutes walk of an area of publicly accessible open space and between 15 and 30 minutes by bus or car from other cultural, leisure and recreational activities [1 point]

Negative: The site results in a loss of recreational facilities [0 points]

Low: score is not changed.
TOTAL SCORE (out of 51)