Type of Parish Council Parish Councillors
x10 (not all involved
(NB – this information is replicated on the accompanying bookmark for ease of reference whilst reading this and subsequent chapters)
7.2.1 Trottside Neighbourhood Plan
The research in Trottside focused on the development of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Trottside Parish Council (TPC) were chosen by DCLG in 2011 as one of 208 Neighbourhood Planning ‘front runners’, along with three other areas in the
Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWaCC) area. As such, they were amongst the first to start work on their Neighbourhood Plan following the passing of the Localism Act 2011 and related regulations (UK, 2011; 2012). Having previously developed a Parish Plan and Village Design Statement, the Parish Council were in a good position to progress their Neighbourhood Plan and significant development pressure added a sense of urgency.
In order to develop their Neighbourhood Plan, TPC undertook a four-stage process of consultation and engagement with the local community, involving a range of workshops, two major surveys and innovative approaches to engage with particular groups, such as a rave to engage young people. The decision to utilise this relatively sophisticated engagement process was driven partly by the previous
Chapter 7
196 experience of developing a Parish Plan and Village Design Statement, which had demonstrated the value of consultation. Perhaps more importantly, it was also driven by key Parish Council members, who believed in the value of inclusive, participative processes to ensure community support for the final outcome – “You have to be prepared to listen…because everybody has a view that they think’s important, even if it’s completely bonkers” (Parish Council Chair, TPC 1).
A largely retrospective theory of change (ToC) for the Neighbourhood Planning process was developed through a workshop convened as part of the research and further discussions with TPC activists. This was augmented during phase two of the research by evidence from a workshop with other community members and interviews with key CWaCC officers. Although such a retrospective ToC clearly has less value in terms of improving the process, unlike the more common prospective application of ToC approaches, it provides a strong narrative lens through which to explore the interactions between national policy and local
practice. A summary version of the ToC is set out in Figure 7.1 below (the full ToC logic model is provided in Appendix E). Importantly, whilst Figure 7.1 simplifies the model into a relatively linear structure, the intertwined arrows between inputs and activities specifically highlight the extent of deliberate process learning, as TPC utilised early engagement stages not merely to inform the Neighbourhood Plan, but also to enhance the skills of those involved and draw more people into the process.
197
Figure 7.1 – Summary version of Trottside Neighbourhood Plan theory of change Intended
Chapter 7
198 As with all Local Plans, the Neighbourhood Plan was subject to independent
examination, to ensure that it met legal requirements, before being approved at referendum in 2013 with a 96% majority on a 52% turnout. The final Plan
(Cheshire West and Chester Council, 2014) contained six policies, summarised as follows:
1. To enable managed housing growth, proposals for new housing in Trottside up to 30 homes will be allowed over the period of the Plan. Additionally, housing proposals should take housing need for the area into account and provide affordable housing, as specified in the Local Plan.
2. Development will be supported where it fits with the local character of the village, accords with the Village Design Statement and has good
environmental performance.
3. Conversion of existing buildings and small-scale new build development will be supported where it provides employment opportunities.
4. Proposals for development will be required to identify their likely impact on local infrastructure, services and facilities and to demonstrate how any such impacts will be addressed.
5. Development proposals should aim to minimise the increase in traffic they may create and make provision for high-speed broadband.
6. Development will not be supported within designated ‘local green spaces’
except under very special circumstances.
Crucially, although the Plan was overwhelmingly approved by the community in the referendum, it has been repeatedly challenged by a number of developers with plans for substantial housing developments around the village. In particular, the developers have been concerned at the constraint placed on the scale and pace of new house building by Policy 1. Whilst the Plan allows for a greater number of new houses than required by the Local Plan, this policy was included due to significant local concern about the implications for services, infrastructure and community cohesion of rapid expansion within a relatively small village. Table 7.1 below sets out the key challenges to the Plan.
Chapter 7
199 Table 7.1 – Challenges to Trottside Neighbourhood Plan by Developers
Stage of process Developer action Outcome During Neighbourhood
Secretary of State still to decide on 3 applications (1 withdrawn)
Examination Challenges to specific policies (especially Policy 1) and Plan as a whole by 4 developers
Some minor
Thrown out by court, but developers allowed leave to challenge Plan after referendum
Immediately after referendum
Judicial review of Plan by 2 developers, on basis that appropriate process had not been followed
Rejected by Judge at Manchester High Court
Following the dismissal of the High Court judicial review, the Plan was ‘made’ by the local authority in June 2014, thereby becoming part of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan. However, three of the original planning applications are still at the appeal stage, awaiting a final decision from the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government.
7.2.2 Interaction with national policy theories of change
Localism Assumption 1 – Power needs to be devolved from the state
In line with the broad thrust of the Localism agenda, Neighbourhood Planning is presented as taking power away from state control and handing it to communities (DCLG, 2010). Despite the continuing challenges from developers, it is possible to identify significant outcomes arising from the Neighbourhood Plan process which suggest that the devolution of power to TPC has generated benefits for the local community. Most obviously, the Plan itself has been successfully produced and, despite the repeated challenges, thus far it has prevented approval of any large-scale housing development. Whilst it is impossible to be certain that this outcome