Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan - Regulation 16 consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 17170

Received: 15/06/2026

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The Canal & River Trust (the Trust) owns and manages the Shropshire Union, which runs along the south western edge of Christleton, and therefore a section of the aforementioned canal is included within the proposed Neighbourhood Plan designation.

The Trust recognises and values the important role of planning policy in not only protecting its network of inland waterways from inappropriate development, but also in unlocking the potential of inland waterways to bring multiple benefits to local communities.

The Trust provided initial comments (dated 12th March 25) provided an informal opinion on the scope of matters that could affect Shropshire Union Canal within the planning system and within a Neighbourhood Plan. The email and content were not suggested policies within the draft Neighbourhood Plan.
The Trust provided informal comments (dated 19th November 25) on an initial draft of the Neighbourhood Plan and raised concerns regarding the wording, intention and unintended consequences of a number of policies, which are explained in further detail below.
We note the positive way in which the Neighbourhood Plan makes it clear that the Shropshire Union Canal is valued by the local community, and we are confident that the policies proposed are based on a desire to protect this valued asset and we greatly welcome this.
However as a statutory consultee, we have concerns regarding the potential unintended consequences arising from elements of the draft Neighbourhood Plan and compliance with respective NPPF criteria, as set out below.
Our concerns are based on that the respective draft policies could give rise to potential adverse impacts to the canal corridor without revision, that they lack sufficient clarity or consistency and do not adequately demonstrate that they have had appropriate regard to national policy, nor that they are in general conformity with the strategic policies of the adopted Local Plan. As such, we consider that the draft Plan, in its current form, does not meet the requirements of the Basic Conditions as explained in further detail below.

Policy HDC1 - General Housing
Policy HDC1 states
‘Proposals for all new housing in the plan area must accord with the required scale of housing development and both the Christleton and Littleton Design Code and the new Design Guidance published by GOV.UK January 2026 ‘to raise the bar for new build development.’
In addition, the supporting text states ‘the Steering Group carefully considered the national guidance and decided that most matters included within the Code are mandatory design practices and parameters that must be adhered to’.
The NPPF states that guidance should be grounded in an understanding and evaluation of each area’s defining characteristics and that clarity about design expectations are useful.
The Trust acknowledge that the Design Code is based on an analysis of locally distinctive characteristics of Christleton and Littleton, as advocated by the NPPF and welcome that the Design Code in general would seek to achieve contextually sensitive design, that promotes locally distinctive character and a sense of place.
However, whilst the Trust supports the promotion of locally distinctive design, we have concerns regarding the unintended consequences of the policy wording and compliance with Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
Policy HDC1 raises concerns in respect of:
• it lacks flexibility and does not reflect site-specific design
• it risks inconsistency with other Neighbourhood Plan Policies
• it risks non-conformity with National and Local Plan policy, and therefore does not clearly demonstrate how it contributes to sustainable development.
As such, the Trust considers that, as drafted, it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and adopted Local Plan and risks conflict with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan. As such it also risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions for the following reasons.

Conformity with National Planning context and Local Plan context
Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with national planning policy and the provisions of adopted local Plan. The NPPF requires development to respond to local context and site-specific constraints; heritage assets and environmental quality. National policies advocate site-specific flexibility within an overarching framework of achieving high-quality design. The NPPF’s design policies are flexible, set broad characteristics of good design and are designed to be applied on a site-by-site basis, enabling context-sensitive, locally responsive design solutions.
The latest national design guidance (January 2026), referred to in Policy HDC1, promotes locally distinctive design, but also requires a context-led and proportionate approach. As such, Policy HDC 1 does not align with the provisions of the design Guidance.
In addition, policy provisions within the adopted Local Plan (Policies ENV 6 and DM3 (CWAC Local Plan – Part 1) includes design principles that should be included ‘where appropriate’. and requires development to achieve a high standard that respects and protects the visual amenity of the area, which will be supported, where relevant’.
The use of the term “must adhere” introduces an approach which is not fully aligned with the NPPF’s emphasis on site-specific, context-led design. Design Policies and should allow greater flexibility in application of policy and input from site specific analysis, context and constraints.

Contribution to Sustainable Development
The National Planning Policy Framework promotes a flexible, design-led approach, recognising that high-quality development should be informed by the unique characteristics, constraints and opportunities of individual sites. Compliance with HDC1, having to adhere to all of the Design Code could risk inappropriate design solutions that are not sufficiently contextual and as such the draft consultation has not demonstrated how it clearly contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

Conclusion and Recommended Modification
The policy is positive in intent however as drafted, it is prescriptive, insufficiently flexible, and fails to allow a site-specific context led design.
The Trust recommend that the policy wording be modified to enable proposals to respond flexibly to local circumstances as a prescriptive requirement in the policy wording risks limiting the ability of proposals to respond appropriately to site-specific circumstances and hinder the delivery of high-quality development.
A more proportionate approach would be to require development to “have regard to” or “demonstrate how it responds to” the stated criteria in Policy HDC1 to allow a degree of flexibility, rather than mandating strict adherence in all cases.
The Trust object to the current wording and to address the above issues, the Trust suggest the following modification.
‘Proposals for all new housing in the plan area should demonstrate how it responds positively to the required scale of housing development and both the Christleton and Littleton Design Code and the new Design Guidance published by GOV.UK January 2026 ‘to raise the bar for new build development.’

Policy HDC2 - Green Infrastructure
Policy HDC2 states:
‘Development must strengthen existing wildlife corridors by creating green spaces and habitat that connect into the surrounding countryside.
Development must preserve important views within, into, and out of the parishes to maintain the existing parkland character of the area (these views are set out in section 6.15 - Local Views).
In addition the policy text refers to providing recreational space and enhancing green character and biodiversity, along with reference to green corridors through housing developments.
The Trust supports the overarching objectives of the policy aspiration to expand and improve green infrastructure and promote green character while providing important recreational spaces for residents and enhancing biodiversity. However, whilst the Trust supports the promotion of green infrastructure, we have concerns regarding the wording, clarity, and effectiveness of the policy and compliance with Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
Policy HDC2 raises concerns in respect of:
• it lacks clarity
• it risks non-conformity with National and Local Plan policy, and therefore does not clearly demonstrate how it contributes to sustainable development.
As such, the Trust considers that, as drafted, it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and adopted Local Plan and risks conflict with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan. As such it also risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions for the following reasons.

Conformity with National Planning context and Local Plan context
Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with national planning policy and the provision of adopted Local Plan.
Green Infrastructure is defined as ‘a network of multi-functional green and blue spaces, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits’. The Shropshire Union Canal is recognised as part of the green infrastructure network in the borough, and is multifunctional providing a range of environmental, social and economic functions.
Policy ENV 3 of the adopted Local Plan supports the creation, enhancement, protection and management of a network of high-quality, multi-functional Green Infrastructure, recognising its role in delivering a wide range of benefits including biodiversity, recreation, water management, sustainable transport and economic regeneration.
In light of the above context, the policy intention is unclear with regard to how the objectives of HDC2 reflect the full concept of Green Infrastructure as set out in national and local policy. The current wording places emphasis on individual elements—such as wildlife corridors and views—rather than the delivery of a connected, multi-functional network.
Furthermore, the policy lacks sufficient clarity as to how its requirements are to be applied in practice. For example, it is unclear:
• whether the policy applies to all forms of development,
• what scale or type of green infrastructure provision is expected, and
• how compliance should be demonstrated.
The lack of clarity risks inconsistent interpretation and may not provide an effective framework for decision-making.
The Trust considers that the policy, as currently drafted, does not provide a clear and effective framework and does not adequately demonstrate that it has had regard to national policy or that it is in general conformity with the strategic policies of the adopted Local Plan. As such, it raises concerns in respect of the Basic Conditions.

Conclusion and Recommended Modification
The Trust recommends that Policy HDC2 and supporting text be revised to:
• Provide greater clarity regarding its purpose and application, explicitly referencing the delivery of connected, multi-functional green infrastructure networks;
• Adopt a more flexible, design-led approach, requiring proposals to demonstrate how they contribute to and enhance Green Infrastructure, and
• Clearly define expectations for different scales and types of development.
For example:
“Development proposals should contribute to the creation, enhancement and connectivity of green infrastructure networks across the plan area. Proposals will be expected to demonstrate how they:
• protect, restore and, where appropriate, strengthen existing wildlife corridors and ecological networks;
• deliver multi-functional green infrastructure that provides a range of environmental, recreational and health benefits;
• Development should also have regard to important local views, including those identified in Section 6.15, and seek to conserve the distinctive parkland character of the area, taking a proportionate and site-specific approach.”
 
Policy HDC5 – Water and Drainage (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems)
Policy HDC 5 states:
‘Sustainable urban drainage features (SuDS) such as swales or rain gardens must be included in new developments. SuDS could also be used to create green corridors’.
The Trust welcomes the general aspiration within Policy HDC5 to promote the use of sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) in new development. However, SUDS can harm the stability, water management and water quality of canals if not properly designed and controlled.
Whilst the Trust supports the principle of promoting SUDs in new development, the Trust has concerns regarding the unintended consequences of the policy wording and compliance with Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
Policy HDC5 raises concerns in respect of:
• It is not deliverable in all circumstances
• It lacks clarity and flexibility
• It risks inconsistency with other Neighbourhood Plan Policies
• It risks non-conformity with National and Local Plan policy, and therefore does not clearly demonstrate how it contributes to sustainable development.
As drafted, it is overly prescriptive, does not reflect site-specific constraints, and is not deliverable. As such, the Trust considered that it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and adopted Local Plan and risks conflict with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan. As such it risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions for the following reasons.

Deliverability and Flexibility
The requirement that SuDS features must be included in all new developments is prescriptive and fails to recognise the importance of site-specific constraints, particularly in relation to development located adjacent to canal corridors.

Potential Impacts on the Canal Corridor and Infrastructure
The blanket requirement for implementation of SUDs is considered prescriptive and fails to take account of site-specific constraints. In practice, certain types of SuDS, especially infiltration-based systems, may not be appropriate in proximity to canal infrastructure. Poorly sited or designed SuDS can:
• Adversely affect groundwater and moisture regimes, potentially weakening canal embankment stability and, in extreme cases, lead to structural failure
• Result in uncontrolled or concentrated flows entering the canal, increasing the risk of erosion and damage to banks and infrastructure
• Introduce pollutants into the waterway, leading to deterioration in water quality
The canal network requires careful management of water inputs and surrounding ground conditions. Any drainage proposals into a Trust owned waterbody, in particular direct discharges, are subject to detailed assessment to ensure:
• The quality and quantity of water entering the canal is acceptable
• Drainage design does not compromise structural integrity or operational function
• Appropriate stand-off distances are maintained for infiltration systems
The policy, as currently worded, does not allow for these constraints and therefore risks requiring solutions that may be inappropriate or undeliverable. Consequently, it risks adverse impacts on the canal environment and infrastructure in certain circumstances.

Conflict with National Planning Context and Local Plan Context
Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with national planning policy and the provision of adopted local Plan.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) promotes the use of SuDS; however, paragraphs 175, 181–182 and 186–189, require that drainage strategies are proportionate to the scale of development, informed by site-specific conditions, and designed to avoid increased flood risk, pollution, and land instability, while delivering multifunctional benefits through sustainable drainage systems.
Paragraphs 182 and 187 of the NPPF emphasise that development should:
• Incorporate drainage solutions that control runoff appropriately and safely
• Avoid contributing to, or being affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution or land instability
• Contribute positively to environmental quality, including water and ecological networks
Local Plan provisions (DM41) requires major development to incorporate SuDS from the outset of design, control runoff to greenfield rates (or achieve betterment on brownfield sites), reduce flood risk, deliver environmental benefits, and provide for long-term maintenance. As such the Policy allows for a proportionate and site-specific approach. Policy HDC5 requiring SuDS in all development risks conflicting with Policy DM41 that allows exceptions and proportionality and retains flexibility to account for site constraints. A blanket requirement for SuDS, without qualification or safeguards, does not reflect the above policy approach and is not fully consistent with national policy, due to lack of flexibility and failure to account for site-specific flexibility enabling context-sensitive design solutions.

Contribution to Sustainable Development
Compliance with HDC5 and requiring SUDs could risk potential adverse effects on canal infrastructure and environment and as such the draft consultation has not demonstrated how it clearly contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

Potential inconsistency with Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan
Policy HDC5 requires SuDS to be included in all developments without qualification. However, the Neighbourhood Plan includes other policies which require development to:
• Safeguard the structural and operational integrity of waterways
• Protect ecological value and biodiversity
• Maintain water quality
As currently drafted, the policy risks conflicting with other policies in the Plan which seek to safeguard the canal’s structural integrity, ecological function, and water quality.
The policy therefore creates a situation where compliance with Policy HDC5 may lead to conflict with canal protection policies elsewhere in the Plan. This lack of alignment undermines the clarity, effectiveness, and the policy, as drafted.

Conclusion and Recommended Modification
While the Trust supports the inclusion of SuDS in principle, and the policy is positive in intent, as drafted, it is overly prescriptive, insufficiently flexible, and may not be appropriate in all locations due to operational and environmental constraints risking harm without mitigation and/or flexibility.
The Trust recommend that the policy wording be modified to enable proposals to respond flexibly to local circumstances, as a prescriptive requirement in the policy wording may risks limiting the ability of proposals to respond appropriately to site-specific circumstances and hinder the delivery of high-quality development.
A more compliant version would allow flexibility and safeguards and The policy should be modified to require SuDS only where appropriate, and to ensure they do not adversely affect canal infrastructure, stability, or water quality.
The Trust object to the current wording and to address the above issues, the Trust suggest the following type pf modification of modification.
• All development should incorporate SuDS where feasible”
• “SuDS will be required unless demonstrated to be inappropriate”
“Sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) should be incorporated into new development where appropriate.
Any supporting text should include reference to the importance of ‘SuDS should be designed and located to ensure no adverse impact on the structural integrity, operation, water quality, or ecological value of the Shropshire Union Canal and its associated infrastructure.”
Accordingly, modifications are required to ensure the policy is flexible, deliverable, and compliant with the Basic Conditions, while still achieving its intended objectives.

Policy HDC7 – Public Space
Policy HD7 states:
‘Green public spaces must be provided to support social interaction and enhance biodiversity. Communities require clear focal points such as pocket parks, garden squares or informal green spaces that provide a welcoming place to meet, rest and play.’
The Trust welcomes the overarching aspiration of Policy HDC7 to secure the provision of green public spaces that support social interaction and enhance biodiversity. However, the policy as currently drafted lacks sufficient clarity and precision. As such, the Trust considered that it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
Deliverability and Clarity
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires that plans:
• “be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable”
• contain policies that are “clearly written and unambiguous”
• provide clarity so it is evident how a decision maker should react
The current policy wording does not provide clarity regarding:
• the types and scales of development to which the requirement applies; and
• the expected scale, form and distribution of such provision.
Such clarification would help ensure the policy is effective, deliverable and consistent with national policy.
Conclusion and Recommended Modification
The policy is positive in intent however as drafted lacks clarity and precision. The Trust therefore recommends that the policy is amended to clarify the types of development it applies to and the type of provision that would comply with the policy, being proportionate to the nature and scale of development.
Suggested wording includes:
“Provision should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development and informed by site-specific considerations.”
This would improve consistency with national policy and help ensure that development proposals can respond appropriately to local circumstances while still achieving the intended placemaking and environmental outcomes.

Policy HDC8 – Squares, Parks and Greens
Policy HDC8 states:
‘New developments must include squares, parks and greens or other communal gathering spaces that encourage neighbourly interactions and community use. These spaces will strengthen the calm, rural character of Christleton and Littleton. New public spaces must be well overlooked with building fronting on to them.’
The Trust supports the ambition of Policy HDC8 to require the inclusion of communal spaces that encourage social interaction and reinforce local character. However, whilst the Trust supports the promotion of communal spaces, we have concerns regarding the wording, clarity, and effectiveness of the policy and compliance with Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
The Trust considers that, as drafted, it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and adopted Local Plan, risks conflict with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan and as such it also risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions for the following reason.
Deliverability and Clarity
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires that plans:
• “be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable”
• contain policies that are “clearly written and unambiguous”
• provide clarity so it is evident how a decision maker should react
The current policy wording does not:
• does not specify the development thresholds or site types to which it applies; and
• provides limited guidance on the appropriate scale and form of provision.
Such clarification would help ensure the policy is effective, deliverable and consistent with national policy
Conclusion and Recommended Modification
The policy is positive in intent however as drafted lacks clarity and precision. The Trust therefore recommends that the policy is amended to ensure the policy is robust and deliverable.
The Trust therefore recommends that the policy is amended to clarify the types of development it applies to and type of provision expected, being proportionate to the nature and scale of development; and enables a site-specific assessment, allowing the type, quantity and design of spaces to respond appropriately to local context, constraints and opportunities.
Suggested wording includes:
“Provision should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development and informed by site-specific considerations.”
This would improve consistency with national policy and help ensure that development proposals can respond appropriately to local circumstances while still achieving the intended placemaking and environmental outcomes.

Policy HDC 14 – Blocks

Policy HDC 14 states:

‘Development blocks should be designed to create walkable and safe neighbourhoods. Blocks must have clear backs and fronts, with back gardens facing other back gardens or parking areas. Back gardens which border streets or public spaces must not be permitted.’

The Trust support the aspiration of the policy to promote walkable, safe neighbourhoods that incorporate natural surveillance and overlooked public spaces. However, the Trust considers that as currently drafted lacks sufficient clarity and is insufficiently flexible, effecting its deliverability. As such, the Trust considered that it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions, as outlined below.

Deliverability and Clarity
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires that plans:
• “be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable”
• contain policies that are “clearly written and unambiguous”
• provide clarity so it is evident how a decision maker should react
The current policy wording does not provide clarity regarding what constitutes a ‘public space’. The Neighbourhood Plan does not define public spaces and therefore the restriction on back gardens adjoining “public spaces” is difficult to interpret and adhere to consistently. The Trust consider canals are public spaces and would seek for clarification to determine impact of the policy on the canal corridor.

Potential inconsistency with Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan
Policy HDC14 does not permit back gardens to border streets or public spaces, however Policy SUC 4 advocates gardens facing the canal.
The definition of a public space is unclear however the Trust consider the canal to be a public space and therefore, as currently drafted, Policy HDC14 may not be consistent with Policy SUC4.
The policy therefore creates a situation where compliance with Policy HDC14 may lead to conflict with SUC4, which undermines the clarity, effectiveness, of the policies and Neighbourhood Plan, as drafted.

Conformity with National Planning context and Local Plan context
Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with national planning policy and the provisions of adopted local Plan.
The NPPF requires development to respond to local context and site-specific constraints; heritage assets and environmental quality. The NPPF’s design policies are flexible, set broad characteristics of good design and are designed to be applied on a site-by-site basis, enabling context-sensitive, locally responsive design solutions. In addition, policy provisions within the adopted Local Plan require adhering to design criteria where appropriate (Policies ENV 6 and DM3 (CWAC Local Plan – Part 1). A lack of flexibility may result in this policy being difficult to implement and have unintended consequences of stagnating areas which are not defined as public areas. Design Policies should allow flexibility in application of policy and emphasis on site-specific, context-led design to accord with NPPF provisions.

Contribution to Sustainable Development
The National Planning Policy Framework promotes a flexible, design-led approach, recognising that high-quality development should be informed by the unique characteristics, constraints and opportunities of individual sites.
Compliance with HDC14, preventing back gardens fronting public spaces in all circumstances could limit design solutions and risk inappropriate design that are not sufficiently contextual and as such the draft consultation has not demonstrated how it clearly contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

Conclusion and Recommended Modification
The policy is positive in intent however as drafted, lacks clarity, insufficiently flexible, and fails to allow a site-specific context led design and risk non-conformity with national policy guidance and is inconstant with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan.
The Trust therefore recommends that the policy is amended to clarify the definition of public space for clarification, and greater flexibility to allow for context-led design.
A more proportionate approach would be ‘Back gardens which border streets or public spaces must not be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated there is no harm to the prevailing context.’ to allow a degree of flexibility, rather than mandating strict adherence in all cases.
This would improve consistency with national policy and help ensure that development proposals can respond appropriately to local circumstances while still achieving the intended placemaking and environmental outcomes.

Policy HDC24 - Boundary walls and fences
Policy HDC24 states:
‘Boundary treatments play an important role in setting a new development into its context and help strengthen the existing character. Front garden boundaries must be hedgerows, low stone, cheshire railing or brick walls. Close-boarded fences must not face public areas or streets.’
The Trust support the general policy provision that boundary treatments are integral to the character of the area and that tall close boarding fencing may not be appropriate in all circumstances. The Trust generally promote developments that positively interact with the canal corridor and the provision of close boarded fencing can present a harsh exterior to the canal environment. Boundary treatments along the canal corridor have a strong influence on the character and appearance of the corridor.
However, the Trust has significant concerns regarding the unintended consequences of the policy wording and considers, as currently drafted, lacks sufficient clarity and is insufficiently flexible. As such, the Trust considered that it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
Deliverability and Clarity
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires that plans:
• “be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable”
• contain policies that are “clearly written and unambiguous”
• provide clarity so it is evident how a decision maker should react
The current policy wording does not provide clarity regarding what constitutes a ‘public area or street’. The Neighbourhood Plan does not define these areas and therefore the policy is difficult to interpret and adhere to consistently.
The Trust considers that the canal is a publicly area and would seek for clarification to determine impact of the policy on the canal corridor.

Conformity with National Planning context and Local Plan context
Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with national planning policy and the provisions of adopted local Plan.
The NPPF requires development to respond to local context and site-specific constraints; heritage assets and environmental quality. The NPPF’s design policies are flexible, set broad characteristics of good design and are designed to be applied on a site-by-site basis, enabling context-sensitive, locally responsive design solutions. In addition, policy provisions within the adopted Local Plan require adhering to design criteria where appropriate (Policies ENV 6 and DM3 (CWAC Local Plan – Part 1). A lack of flexibility may result in this policy being difficult to implement and have unintended consequences of stagnating areas which are not defined as public areas. Without flexibility to apply where appropriate, the policy may have unintended consequences.
Design Policies should allow flexibility in application of policy and emphasis on site-specific, context-led design to accord with NPPF provisions.

Contribution to Sustainable Development
The National Planning Policy Framework promotes a flexible, design-led approach, recognising that high-quality development should be informed by the unique characteristics, constraints and opportunities of individual sites.
Compliance with HDC24, preventing the use of fencing along public areas or streets in all circumstances could risk inappropriate design and as such the draft consultation has not demonstrated how it clearly contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

Conclusion and Recommended Modification
The policy is positive in intent however as drafted, lacks clarity, insufficiently flexible, and fails to allow a site-specific context led design and risk non-conformity with national policy guidance and is inconstant with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan.
The Trust therefore recommends that the policy is amended to clarify the definition of public area for clarification, and greater flexibility to allow for context led design.
This would improve consistency with national policy and help ensure that development proposals can respond appropriately to local circumstances while still achieving the intended placemaking and environmental outcomes.
A more proportionate approach would be ‘Close-boarded fences must not face public areas or streets, where appropriate’ or to require development to “have regard to” prevailing context to allow a degree of flexibility, rather than mandating strict adherence in all cases.

Policy HDC10 – Walking and Cycling Routes
Policy HDC10 requires that:
“Where sites border existing public footpaths and rights of way (such as the Shropshire Union canal towpath) they must connect into these routes.”
The Trust welcomes the promotion of sustainable transport, active travel and the creation of walkable neighbourhoods in the Neighbourhood Plan. The Trust recognises that the canal network can make a valuable contribution to pedestrian connectivity, and we support the policy’s aspiration to promote such links. However, whilst the Trust supports the principle of promoting connectivity, the Trust has significant concerns regarding the unintended consequences of the policy wording and compliance with Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
Policy HDC10 raises concerns in respect of:
• It is not deliverable in all circumstances
• lacks clarity and flexibility
• risks inconsistency with other Neighbourhood Plan Policies
• risks non-conformity with National and Local Plan policy, and therefore does not clearly demonstrate how it contributes to sustainable development.
As drafted, it is overly prescriptive, does not reflect site-specific constraints, and is not deliverable. As such, the Trust considered that it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and adopted Local Plan and risks conflict with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan. As such it risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions for the following reasons.

Deliverability and Clarity
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires that plans:
• “be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable”
• contain policies that are “clearly written and unambiguous”
• provide clarity so it is evident how a decision maker should react

Where policies lack flexibility or rely on uncertain third party actions, they risk failing to meet these requirements and the Basic Conditions. Policy HDC10 imposes a blanket requirement that development must connect to the canal towpath where it borders a development site. However,
• The canal and towpath is not always a designated public right of way
• The canal towpath is privately owned and managed third-party infrastructure and any connection requires separate landowner consent and technical approval
• The policy also fails to recognise that connections to the canal towpath may not be appropriate, feasible or safe in all locations and may adversely affect the canal.
The policy wording omits reference to the need for any new access onto the towpath requiring separate landowner consent and agreement. Compliance with Policy HDC10 depends on third-party land and consent and planning permission cannot guarantee access rights. As a result, development proposals may be unable to comply, even where acceptable in all other respects, and therefore the policy is not clear and not deliverable in all cases.
Potential Impacts on the Canal Corridor and Infrastructure
The blanket requirement for connection wherever development borders the canal is considered overly prescriptive and fails to take account of site-specific constraints. Consequently, it risks adverse impacts on the canal environment and infrastructure in certain circumstances.
These include:
Safety and Operational Risks
• Poorly located access points (e.g. near locks, bridges or areas of limited visibility) can increase risk of collision and unexpected entry to water and risk to public safety.
Structural and Engineering Impacts
• Harm to the structural integrity and stability of the canal infrastructure
• Risks arising from construction activity or changes to ground conditions.
Heritage Impacts
• Harm to the historic environment, such as historic locks and disruption of traditional towpath surfacing (e.g. around Lock 9);
• Erosion of the canal’s historic character and setting.
Ecological and Environmental Impacts
• Disturbance to habitats and wildlife;
• Increased pressure for vegetation clearance;
• Introduction of urbanising elements (e.g. lighting
Amenity and Character
• Impact on the canal corridor’s character;
• Increased use without appropriate infrastructure, mitigation, or maintenance provision.
Policy provisions should be flexible, proportionate and subject to site specific analysis to prevent harm in social, environmental and economic terms. As worded, the policy requires inclusion and fails to recognise where connections may be inappropriate and/or create risk or harm to the canal infrastructure, environment and setting, contrary to NPPF and Local Plan provisions.

Pressure on towpath capacity and maintenance burden
Increased use of the towpath can lead to increased wear on canal infrastructure and requirement to maintain and repair (for example towpath surface deterioration and increased need for maintenance and safety infrastructure). The Neighbourhood Plan requires a mandatory connection without securing maintenance or upgrades to the towpath, which places a greater liability on the Trust.

Conformity with National Planning context and Local Plan context
Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with national planning policy and the provision of adopted local Plan.
• The NPPF requires development to:
o respond to local context and site-specific constraints;
o prioritise safe and suitable access for all users;
o protect heritage assets, environmental quality, and biodiversity.
The requirement to connect in all circumstances is inconsistent with these principles, particularly where connections could result in environmental harm or adverse impacts to heritage assets.
The latest national design guidance (January 2026), referred to in the draft NP, promotes connectivity and walkability, but also require a context-led and proportionate approach. As such, Policy HDC 10 does not align with the provisions of the latest national design Guidance.
The policy is not fully consistent with national policy, due to lack of flexibility and failure to account for site-specific flexibility enabling context-sensitive design solutions.
Policy ENV 6 (CWAC Local Plan – Part 1) includes design principles that should be included ‘where appropriate’ and Policy DM3 (CWAC Local Plan – Part 1) requires development to achieve a high standard and outlines that ‘design solutions will be supported, where relevant’. As such Policy HDC10 is not fully consistent with Local Plan Policies that advocate flexibility and input from site specific analysis, context and constraints.
Contribution to Sustainable Development
Compliance with HDC10 and requiring connection “where sites border” could risk potential adverse effects on canal infrastructure and environment and as such the draft consultation has not demonstrated how it clearly contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
Potential inconsistency with Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan
Policies within the Neighbourhood Plan also requires development to safeguard the structural and operational integrity of the canal, protect its ecological value and heritage. However, requiring multiple new connections may in certain circumstances:
• increase pressure on towpath capacity and condition
• create erosion, maintenance and safety issues
• Potentially adversely affect ecology and amenity within the canal corridor through access creation and associated infrastructure
As such, compliance with HDC10 may risk non- compliance with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan’
Conclusion and Recommended Modification
The policy is positive in intent however as drafted, it is overly prescriptive, insufficiently flexible, fails to recognise that connections to the canal towpath require third-party consent and therefore is potentially undeliverable and may not be appropriate in all locations due to operational, environmental and safety constraints risking harm without mitigation and flexibility.
A more compliant version would allow flexibility and safeguards and navigate the requirement for separate landowner consent.
The Trust object to the current wording and to address the above issues, the Trust suggest the following modification.
“Development should seek to connect to existing public footpaths and rights of way, including the canal towpath, where feasible and appropriate, having regard to site-specific constraints.’
The supporting text should make reference to how any such connections must be agreed with the relevant landowner and designed to ensure no adverse impact on the structural integrity, operational function, safety, ecological value or heritage significance of the canal and its corridor.
Accordingly, modifications are required to ensure the policy is flexible, deliverable, and compliant with the Basic Conditions, while still achieving its intended objectives.

Section 6.3 – The Shropshire Union Canal
The comments provided by the Trust in November 2025 in response to a draft plan consultation were informal comments intending to outline topics and issues relevant to the Canale nerwork in the planning making process and were not provided to be included as policies within the NP but to highlight the opportunities of canals and issues that prevent inappropriate development.

Policies SUC1–SUC7 – Shropshire Union Canal
The Plan contains a suite of policies (SUC1–SUC7) relating to the Shropshire Union Canal, covering its multifunctional role, development requirements, heritage, biodiversity buffers, water quality, green infrastructure and moorings. The Trust supports the recognition of the Shropshire Union Canal as a key multifunctional asset within the Neighbourhood Plan area.
The Plan appropriately identifies the canal’s role in:
• green and blue infrastructure networks
• biodiversity and ecological connectivity
• recreation, health and wellbeing
• sustainable transport and active travel
• heritage and landscape character
This is consistent with national policy which recognises the canal as an important environmental and recreational asset. However, whilst the Trust supports the overall intent and policy aspirations, concerns are raised regarding the wording, flexibility, and deliverability of the following policies.
Policy SUC1 – Multifunctional Role
The Trust welcome the inclusion of a policy that seeks to protect and enhance qualities of the Shropshire Canal and its unique characteristics, and recognise its multifunctional role and opportunities. However the Trust has concerns regarding the unintended consequences of the policy wording and compliance with Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
Policy SUC1 raises concerns in respect of:
• It is not deliverable in all circumstances
• lacks clarity and flexibility
• It risks inconsistency with other Neighbourhood Plan Policies
• It risks non-conformity with National and Local Plan policy, and therefore does not clearly demonstrate how it contributes to sustainable development.
As drafted, it is overly prescriptive, does not reflect site-specific constraints, and is not deliverable. As such, the Trust considered that it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and adopted Local Plan and risks conflict with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan. As such it risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions for the following reasons.
Deliverability and Clarity
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires that plans:
• “be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable”
• contain policies that are “clearly written and unambiguous”
• provide clarity so it is evident how a decision maker should react
Where policies lack flexibility, clarity or rely on uncertain third party actions, they risk failing to meet these requirements and the Basic Conditions.
Policy SUC1 states’
The canal, footpaths, greenery and canalside developments must continue to provide
-access to the canal for both local residents and visitors to the area for recreational opportunities and physical activity
- a community resource for supporting health and well-being and social interaction, contributing to movement strategies and accessibility and the provision of ambient and safe car- free alternative travel routes for walking/ cycling.
- ecological habitats and biodiversity through contributing to green corridor networks
-a local infrastructure performing multiple functions, such as land drainage, and supporting carbon reduction and environmental sustainability
-the line of the canal and towpath, the waterside environment, the green setting and its future restoration

The policy wording outlines a blanket requirement that the canal, footpath and greenery along with new development must provide the all the above.
However, the policy wording
• fails to recognise that each aspect may not be deliverable on its own or incompatible with other requirements of the policy without flexibility.
• The canal towpath and canal are privately owned and managed third-party infrastructure and any towpath connection or surface water discharge/water management use of the canal requires separate landowner consent and technical approval.
• The policy fails to recognise that the above policy requirements may not be appropriate, feasible or safe in all locations and may adversely affect the canal.
Compliance with SUC1 depends on third-party land and consent, and planning permission would not guarantee will be granted.
In addition, the policy wording does not provide sufficient clarity with regard to:
• ‘must to continue to provide the ‘line of the canal and towpath, the waterside environment, the green setting and its future restoration.’
• providing a local infrastructure for drainage and a carbon reduction’
• the requirement that development and the canal must provide ‘access’
• The use of the term ‘restoration’.
The Trust would seek greater clarification on the above and without modification consider that these terms are not defined and the policy wording is unclear, insufficiently flexible and deliverable in all cases.
Potential Impacts on the Canal Corridor and Infrastructure
The blanket requirement for all the above aspects of the policy, whilst positive in intent, is considered prescriptive and fails to take account of site-specific constraints. Consequently, without flexibility, the policy wording fails to recognise that the above policy requirements may not be appropriate, feasible or safe in all locations and would risk adverse impacts on the canal environment and infrastructure in certain circumstances.
These include:
Structural and Operational Impacts
• Harm to the structural integrity and stability of the canal infrastructure
• Risks arising from construction activity or changes to ground conditions.
• Risk to operational safety and function
Heritage Impacts
• Harm to the historic environment, such as historic locks and disruption of traditional towpath surfacing
• Erosion of the canal’s historic character and setting.
Ecological and Environmental Impacts
• Disturbance to habitats and wildlife;
• Increased pressure for vegetation clearance;
Amenity and Character
• Impact on the canal corridor’s character
Policy provisions should be flexible, proportionate and subject to site specific analysis to prevent harm in social, environmental and economic terms. As worded, the policy requires that the canal and development ‘must continue to provide’ access, ecological habitat, drainage function and a community resource and fails to recognise where such requirements may be inappropriate and/or create risk or harm to the canal infrastructure, environment and setting, contrary to NPPF and Local Plan provisions,
Pressure on towpath capacity and maintenance burden
Increased use of the towpath can lead to increased wear on canal infrastructure and requirement to maintain and repair (for example towpath surface deterioration and increased need for maintenance and safety infrastructure). The Neighbourhood Plan requires ‘connection’ without securing maintenance or upgrades to the towpath, which places a greater liability on the Trust.
Conformity with National Planning context and Local Plan context
Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with national planning policy and the provision of adopted local Plan.
The NPPF requires development to:
• respond to local context and site-specific constraints;
• prioritise safe and suitable access for all users;
• protect heritage assets, environmental quality, and biodiversity; and
• safeguard land stability and water quality
The above policy provisions of Policy SUC1, whilst positive in intent, in practice are inconsistent with NPPF principles, as the blanket requirement to provide all aspects, without flexibility, could result in environmental harm or adverse impacts to the canal corridor.
The policy is not fully consistent with national policy or Local Plan Policy due to lack of flexibility and failure to account for site-specific flexibility enabling context-sensitive design solutions.
Contribution to Sustainable Development
Compliance with SUC1 could risk potential adverse effects on canal infrastructure and environment, as outlined above, and as such the draft consultation has not demonstrated how it clearly contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
Potential inconsistency with Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan
Policies within the Neighbourhood Plan also requires development to safeguard the structural and operational integrity of the canal, protect its ecological value and heritage, amenity and character. However, requiring compliance with all provision within SUC1 may in certain circumstances:
• impact canal infrastructure and land stability
• create erosion, maintenance and safety issues
• Potentially adversely affect ecology and amenity within the canal corridor
As such, compliance with SUC1 may risk non- compliance with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan.
Conclusion and Recommended Modification
The policy is positive in intent however as drafted, it is overly prescriptive, insufficiently flexible, fails to recognise that a requirement to adhere to all the policy provisions are potentially undeliverable and may not be appropriate in all locations due to operational, environmental, visual and safety constraints risking harm to the canal, without mitigation and flexibility.
A more compliant version would require development proposal to demonstrate how they have considered the canal in line with guiding principles, be more precise, not require provisions without flexibility that may be undeliverable or inconsistent with eachother and allow flexibility and safeguards,
The Trust object to the current wording and to address the above issues, the Trust suggest the following modification.
A more proportionate approach would be to require development to “have regard to” or “demonstrate how it responds to” to allow a degree of flexibility, rather than mandating strict adherence in all cases.
Suggested wording includes:
Development proposals affecting the Shropshire Union Canal and its corridor should protect and, where appropriate, enhance its multifunctional role.
Proposals must demonstrate how they have taken account of the canal’s role in:
• recreation, health and well-being, including walking and cycling access;
• biodiversity and ecological value, as part of a green and blue infrastructure network;
• sustainable movement and active travel;
• heritage, landscape setting and local character; and
• water management and environmental sustainability.

Policy SUC4 – Biodiversity Buffer
Policy SUC 4 states :
Any developments alongside the canal must be laid out with gardens facing the canal and a 20m biodiversity buffer between any property perimeter and the Canal River Trust boundary. The local context set-back needs must be large enough to allow for structural landscaping in the form of specimen trees and hedgerows which would further enhance bio-diversity and screen new development from the canal corridor.
The Trust welcomes the recognition of the importance of providing an appropriate buffer to the canal corridor to protect biodiversity, landscape character and the setting of the waterway. However, the Trust has concerns regarding the unintended consequences of the policy wording and compliance with Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
Policy SUC4 raises concerns in respect of:

• It is not deliverable in all circumstances
• It lacks flexibility
• is overly prescriptive in its requirements
• It risks inconsistency with other Neighbourhood Plan Policies
• It risks non-conformity with National and Local Plan policy, and therefore does not clearly demonstrate how it contributes to sustainable development
As drafted, the policy is overly prescriptive, does not reflect site-specific constraints, and is not deliverable in all cases. As such, the Trust considers that it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and adopted Local Plan and risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions for the following reasons.

Deliverability and Flexibility
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires that plans:
• “be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable”
• contain policies that are “clearly written and unambiguous”
• provide clarity so it is evident how a decision maker should react
Where policies lack clarity, flexibility or impose blanket requirements without regard to site-specific constraints, they risk failing to meet these requirements and the Basic Conditions.
Policy SUC4 states:
Any developments alongside the canal must:
• be laid out with gardens facing the canal; and
• provide a 20m biodiversity buffer between any property perimeter and the Canal & River Trust boundary
• to allow for structural landscaping in the form of specimen trees and hedgerows which would further enhance bio-diversity and screen new development from the canal corridor
However, the policy wording is unclear in that:
• it does not define front or back gardens, and as such it is not clear
• Relies on Canal & River Trust boundary which is no defined and is variable
• The policy also fails to recognise that the application of the specified buffer may not be appropriate, feasible or safe in all locations or deliverable in all cases

Therefore, in light of the above, the policy is not clear, sufficiently flexible or deliverable in all cases.
Potential Impacts on the Canal Corridor and Infrastructure
The blanket requirement for a fixed buffer and specific layout arrangement, whilst positive in intent, is considered overly prescriptive and fails to take account of site-specific constraints.
The canal is a publicly accessible space and the Trust generally advocate development positively interacting with the canal environment to support its sustained use and animation and to not stagnate the vitality and use of the canal corridor. It is not appropriate in all circumstances for development to turn its back on the canal corridor as this can risk stagnating the animation, vitality and use of the canal corridor.
Consequently, without flexibility, the policy may give rise to unintended adverse impacts on the canal corridor and surrounding development.
These include:
Design and Layout Impacts
• Inflexible layout requirements that restrict high-quality design
• Poor integration with surrounding development and stagnating areas adjacent to the canal
Operational and Structural Impacts
• Difficulty in maintaining large unmanaged buffer zones and impact to infrastructure and stability
• Potential for anti-social behaviour in poorly overlooked buffer areas
• Access and maintenance challenges adjacent to canal infrastructure
Amenity and Character
• Risk of creating inactive or poorly utilised spaces adjacent to the canal
Policy provisions should be flexible, proportionate and informed by site-specific assessment to ensure that ecological, design and operational objectives can be effectively achieved.
Conformity with National Planning context and Local Plan context
Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with national planning policy and the provisions of the adopted Local Plan.
The NPPF and Local Plan requires development to:
• respond to local context and site-specific constraints;
• achieve well-designed places that are safe and inviting
• prioritise safe and suitable access for all users
• protect heritage assets, environmental quality, and biodiversity;
• Safeguard land stability and water quality
• provide flexibility in policy application, and
• Maintain an active frontage and positive connection with the waterway
The policy provisions of SUC 4, whilst positive in intent, in practice could be inconsistent with the above national and local policy provisions, as the blanket requirement, without flexibility, could result in environmental harm or adverse impacts to the canal corridor.
The requirement to adhere to a 20m separation distance and install a planted buffer in all circumstances
• Fails to recognise that:
- site constraints (e.g. site size, geometry, existing development pattern) may make a 20m buffer undeliverable
- other policy requirements (layout, access) may conflict with this requirement
• Does not take into account established principles of natural surveillance and context-led design and an allowance for variation depending on context
• does not allow for alternative design approaches and may constrain otherwise appropriate development
• Does not recognise that the requirement could in some circumstances:
- create management and security issues for the canal environment
• Requires structural landscaping without clarifying:
- feasibility, maintenance arrangements
- relationship with canal infrastructure, access and impact on infrastructure and structural integrity
The policy is not fully consistent with national policy or Local Plan Policy due to lack of flexibility and failure to account for site-specific flexibility enabling context-sensitive design solutions.
Contribution to Sustainable Development
While the policy seeks to protect biodiversity and the canal corridor, compliance with SUC4 as currently drafted may:
• restrict appropriate development

• result in design and management issues for the resultant buffer and canal corridor and impacting its character and use
As such, the draft policy has not demonstrated how it clearly contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

Potential inconsistency with Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan
Policies within the Neighbourhood Plan also requires development to safeguard the structural and operational integrity of the canal, protect its ecological value and heritage, achieve good design
and respond to local character and setting of the canal
However, requiring strict compliance with SUC4 may in certain circumstances:
• restrict appropriate layout design
• affect the use, character, function and maintenance along the canal corridor, and
• Conflict with policies that advocate natural surveillance and overlooking of public routes

As such, compliance with SUC4 may lead to inconsistency with other policies in the Plan.

Conclusion and Recommended Modification
The policy is positive in intent; however, as drafted, it is overly prescriptive, insufficiently flexible and does not allow for a site-specific, design-led approach.
The requirement for a fixed 20m biodiversity buffer; and planting may not be appropriate or deliverable in all circumstances and risks creating unintended design, ecological and operational issues.
A more compliant version would:
• require development proposals to demonstrate how they respond to the canal corridor
• allow flexibility in buffer width based on site-specific evidence
• ensure biodiversity and design objectives are achieved in a proportionate and effective manner
The Trust objects to the current wording and to address the above issues, the Trust suggests the following modification:
Policy SUC4 – Biodiversity Buffer
Development proposals adjacent to the Shropshire Union Canal should provide an appropriate buffer to the canal corridor, where appropriate, informed by site-specific considerations, to protect and where appropriate enhance biodiversity, landscape character and the setting of the canal.
Proposals will be expected to demonstrate how they:
• provide a suitable buffer to safeguard the canal corridor and its ecological value;
• incorporate landscaping and planting appropriate to the local context;
• contribute to biodiversity net gain and ecological connectivity; and
• respond positively to the canal in terms of layout and design, having regard to safety, amenity and operational considerations.
The width and form of the buffer should be determined through a site-specific assessment, taking into account the characteristics of the canal corridor, development context and relevant technical and ecological considerations. The above supports promotion of appropriate development principles whilst allowing for flexibility and a context-led approach.
Accordingly, modifications are required to ensure the policy is flexible, deliverable, and compliant with the Basic Conditions, while still achieving its intended objectives.

SUC 5 - Water quality and contamination
The Trust welcome the inclusion of a policy to require development to safeguard water quality of the canal and protect against potential contamination of waterways, during construction and operation.

Policy SUC 6 - Green Infrastructure
The Trust welcome the recognition of the contribution that the canal makes to green and blue infrastructure within the plan area and the policy intention to preserve this infrastructure.
However in line with above comments the policy lacks clarity and the Trust question is it the contribution to Green Infrastructure of the canal to be preserved, which is a multifunctional role?
The Trust suggest the insertion of where appropriate to allow for flexible application of policy for context sensitive design and adherence to broader policy context and sustainable development.

6.5 Green Gaps

Section 6.5 designates sites within the plan area as Green Gaps (GG), and GG1, 2, 4 and 5 adjacent to a stretch of the canal corridor.


Conformity to National Planning and Local Plan Context


All sites within the proposed Green Gaps of the draft Neighbourhood Plan fall within the designated Green Belt.

STRAT 9 (Green Belt and countryside) (Local Plan part 1) of the Local Plan outlines the policy provisions of green belt designation, which prevents inappropriate development that is harmful to the Green Belt and only allows development in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is considered inappropriate, however exceptions to this are allowed providing they preserve the openness of the land and purposes of the Green Belt, such as buildings for agriculture/forestry, outdoor sport and recreation, and replacement buildings.

Policy ENV 2 (Landscape Character) (Local Plan - Part 1) refers to identifying key gaps outside the Green Belt to help enhance local distinctiveness, which is supported by Policy GB3 (Local Plan - Part 2) which identifies key settlement gaps to prevent coalescence of the settlements, and not result in a significant increase in intervisibility between settlement edges.


Green Belt policy prevents inappropriate development that is harmful to openness and preserves landscape character. Green Gaps are a strategic planning tool to prevent settlement merging, which ENV 2 refers to identifying gaps outside the Green Belt. As such, the justification for designating Green Gaps within the Neighbourhood Plan, which falls within the Green Belt, is not clear and why an additional layer of protection above Green Belt Policy is required.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan outlines Green Gaps are ‘protected from new development unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated or where development supports the role and function of the Green Gap’, however the special circumstances or where development supports the function of the Green Gap, are not clearly specified in the policy text to help interpretation or compliance with the policy.

The policy refers to Green Gaps ‘prevent housing developments, reinforce the protection provided by greenbelt, prevent settlements from merging into one another and provide access to open countryside. Green Belt policy prevents inappropriate development that is harmful to openness and preserves landscape character, unless in special circumstances. Settlement Gaps (ENV2 and GB3) are designed to safeguard landscape character and prevent coalescence of settlements
Both policy contexts are based on a criteria-based assessment of development proposals and
ensuring that development is assessed on its impact on the function and openness of the gap.
It is unclear how a blanket restriction within the Green Gaps conform with national and local policy context, as currently drafted.

Impact on Canal corridor

Whilst the Trust recognise that Green Gaps are generally intended to protect openness and separation, there is a concern that the designation of land next to the waterway may have unintended consequences, which could prevent future proposals to enhance the enjoyment of the waterway. This may include the provision of visitor facilities, or facilities to enhance the use of the waterway for boaters, watersports, and fishing amongst others, that could promote activities on the waterway.
The designation of a Green Gap policy may restrict:
• new moorings
• access points or connections to towpath
• visitor facilities or infrastructure
• maintenance or operational improvements
The Trust would seek clarification if the designation would seek to restrict residential moorings and the justification for this.
The Trust would seek for the policy to not prevent the above in the interests of safeguarding the sustained use and enjoyment of the canal corridor, as restrictive policies can unintentionally lead to underused and undermanaged land and undermine the safety, amenity and use of the canal corridor

Other policies within the Neighbourhood plan promote the use, recreational access and enjoyment of the canal, and the Green Gap policy may not be consistent with these policies.


Green Belt policy allows for development that has an operational need for a countryside location such as for agricultural or forestry operations, small scale rural / farm diversification schemes appropriate to the site and setting and provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, all subject to preserving the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with its purposes. As such, Green Belt Policy does allow for certain development that safeguards the open nature of the green Belt and allows for infrastructure and supporting recreational use of a canal.

The Trust is unclear as to the rationale for the designation of the aforementioned sections of land, adjacent to the waterway, as Green Gaps. It risks preventing opportunities for appropriate, canal-responsive development which could enhance access, biodiversity, amenity and the overall function of the waterway. The absence of flexibility may also restrict the delivery of improvements to canal infrastructure and conflict with other policies within the Neighbourhood Plan which promote the multifunctional role of the canal.” The lack of flexibility does not allow for site-specific assessment or the consideration of appropriate, well-designed development that could enhance the canal corridor, including improvements to access, biodiversity and amenity.


The Canal & River Trust is the statutory undertaker with responsibility for regulating navigation on this waterway. Its primary duty, as set out in S10 of the Transport Act 1962 is to ‘provide to such an extent as they may feel expedient services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them’. We benefit from permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. This would remain unchanged by the designation. The waterway forms part of our operational land and we will continue to manage the waterway in accordance with our charitable objectives. The proposed designation may restrict proposals outside of the scope of our permitted development rights which are nonetheless in accordance with our charitable aims and more widely beneficial to the local community and users of the waterway corridor.


Therefore, as currently drafted, the Trust objects to the current wording and suggests modifications to ensure the policy is flexible, proportionate and consistent with the broader policy framework and that the policy be modified to adopt a more flexible, criteria-based approach, requiring proposals to demonstrate that they do not undermine the function of the gap, rather than applying an absolute restriction on development.

Section 6.5 – Local Green Spaces
The Trust notes that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) allows for the designation of Local Green Spaces (LGS) where specific criteria are met (paragraphs 106–108). The Trust recognises the importance of locally important green spaces which are demonstrably special to the community.
However, the Trust has concerns regarding the approach taken in the Neighbourhood Plan in designating Local Green Spaces and the compliance of these policies with the Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
Conformity to National Planning and Local Plan Context

Section 6.5 intends to designate and protect Local Green Spaces within the Neighbourhood Plan area. Policy LGS1 - Law College playing field and Policy LGS2 - Cullimore’s field are adjacent to the canal.
The justification for designating Local Green Space within the Neighbourhood Plan, which falls within the Green Belt, is not clear and why an additional layer of protection above Green Belt Policy is proposed, which prevents development unless in special circumstances. LGS1 and LGS2 are already protected by Green Belt policy and environmental and landscape policies
The draft plan states that ‘All of the green spaces listed below have been assessed against the criteria set out in paragraph 106-108 of the 2024 NPPF’. The green space must be
• close to the community it serves
• demonstrably special to a local community and has local significance because of its beauty, historic significance, recreation value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness in wildlife
• local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.


The draft NP states that the ‘local green spaces that meet the LGS criteria are identified in the map and policy list below and are justified against the above NPPF criteria’
However, the justification of how the designations are of demonstrable special value to the local community or are not an extensive tract of land is not clearly justified in the draft Plan. The Trust has been unable to identify where justification has been provided as to why this land is “demonstrably special”, or holds particular local significance. No evidence has been provided to indicate that there is a discernible difference in appearance, character or heritage value of this stretch of land to those adjacent areas not considered for the Green Space designation.
The Trust would seek further clarification and evidence to demonstrate how the designated sites meet the NPPF criteria as without this the policy risks lacking sufficient clarity and robustness.
Impact on the Canal Corridor
With regards to the proposed designation of LGS1 and LGS2, there is a concern that the designation of land next to the waterway may have unintended consequences, which could prevent future proposals to enhance the enjoyment of the waterway.
This may include the provision of visitor facilities, or facilities to enhance the use of the waterway for boaters, watersports, and fishing amongst others, that could promote activities on the waterway. Applying such an approach could restrict the ability of the Trust (and others) to provide facilities on the waterway that support active and thriving waterways or restrict improvements
or beneficial ancillary uses.
Green Belt policy allows for development that has an operational need for a countryside location such as for agricultural or forestry operations, small scale rural / farm diversification schemes appropriate to the site and setting and provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, all subject to preserving the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with its purposes. As such, Green Belt Policy does allow for certain development that safeguards the open nature of the green Belt and allows for infrastructure and supporting recreational use of a canal. Policy provisions should allow for proportionate and site-specific consideration rather than blanket restrictions.
The Trust is unclear as to the rationale for the designation of the aforementioned sections of land, adjacent to the waterway, as Local Green Space. The Canal & River Trust is the statutory undertaker with responsibility for regulating navigation on this waterway. Its primary duty, as set out in S10 of the Transport Act 1962 is to ‘provide to such an extent as they may feel expedient services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them’. We benefit from permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. This would remain unchanged by the designation. The waterway forms part of our operational land and we will continue to manage the waterway in accordance with our charitable objectives. The proposed designation may restrict proposals outside of the scope of our permitted development rights which are nonetheless in accordance with our charitable aims and more widely beneficial to the local community and users of the waterway corridor.

Therefore, as currently drafted, the Trust objects to the current designations without the provision of evidence to demonstrate that the Local Green Space designations meet the criteria outlined in the NPPF for such designations and provides consistent and evidence-based justification, The community’s aspirations for the waterway corridor to safeguard landscape character and only allow appropriate development could usefully be incorporated into a different policy within the plan.


Section 6.8 CONSERVATION CORRIDOORS AND WILDLIFE RESERVE

C1 – Shropshire Union Canal

The draft Neighbourhood Plan designates ‘The Shropshire Union Canal’ as a critical conservation corridor which passes through part of the plan area.’ It is not clear what this policy designation entails and the Trust would seek further clarification on this matter to determine the impact of the policy.
The Canal is a designated conservation area, and therefore is protected as designated heritage asset to preserve its character in accordance with the NPPF and the Local Plan.

Page 58 refers to ‘the Canal & River Trust has provided a set of general development, heritage, ecology, water quality, health and well-being, green infrastructure and mooring policies to protect the Shropshire Union Canal’. The comments provided (12th March 25) were in informal comments regarding the scope of matters that could affect the Shropshire Union Canal within the planning system and were not suggested polices within the Neighbourhood Plan, which is at the discretion of the determining body. The Trust would seek for that sentence to be removed from the plan.
Policies C1-4 - Conservation corridors and Wildlife reserve,
This policy includes the canal and states
‘There must be no housing development or no access to housing development in the critical wildlife areas shown in the map and listed below.’

Policy provisions should be flexible, proportionate and subject to site specific analysis to prevent harm in social, environmental and economic terms. However, whilst the Trust supports the principle of environmental protection, the Trust Is not clear how the policy wording complies with Basic Conditions, as outlined below.
Policy CW1 raises concerns in respect of:
• risks non-conformity with National and Local Plan policy, and therefore does not clearly demonstrate how it contributes to sustainable development.
As drafted, the Trust considered that it is not fully consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and adopted Local Plan. As such it risks non-compliance with the Basic Conditions.

6.13 PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (PROW)
Policy PROW2 – This refers to converting the PROW from Huntington to Christleton into a shared user path and reinstate the footpath from the Canal to the A41.
The Trust would seek further detail and clarification on this proposal. There is an existing towpath access point at Bridge 122b (A41 road bridge) and the intention of this policy Is not clear.

6.13. WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY

Policy CWT 1

The Trust welcome that the ecological value of the canal is recognised in the draft Neighbourhood Plan.
With regard to Policy CWT 1 and ‘embedding out of bounds areas and dark corridors along watercourses …into the environmental design of the scheme’, canals are multifunctional, and appropriate lighting design (such as ensuring all external lighting is directional, low spillage and wildlife friendly) would be appropriate to facilitate the recreational and operational use of the canal.
As such, lighting along a waterway can help sustained use and would not seek for a policy to undermine boating activity or recreational use of the waterway, as well as and safeguarding wildlife corridors at the same time. It is important to safeguard wildlife corridors and manage lighting to not preclude other use of the waterway.

The Trust would suggest modification to outline embedding out of bounds areas and dark corridors along watercourses, where appropriate’.

Policy CWT 2

This policy refers to ‘tree planting should only occur on species-poor habitats away from existing (non-woodland) priority or semi-natural habitats…. watercourses.’

No tree planting should take place on Trust land not without our consent and not within 5m of the canal edge to safeguard the structural integrity of the waterway. The Trust woud welcome inclusion or wording to reflect the above in the supporting text.

7.3 HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC

Policy HT4
This section refers to’ increasing the width and replacing the surface of the canal footpath so ‘as to move as many Huntington and Great Boughton schoolchildren and elderly pedestrians and cyclists as possible off the polluted and dangerous A41 shared user path and on to the canal footpath’. As an Action between the Parish Council and the Local Highway Authority.
The Trust would seek further detail on this matter and to be involved in further discussions, with reference to how the towpath could be widened, design, materials, how this would be funded and ensuring al the appropriate consents from the Trust are secured. The surface material, design and drainage of towpaths need to be carefully controlled.

Section 7.4 CYCLING PLANS

This section refers to promoting walking and cycling routes to reduce reliance of cars and decrease traffic. Policy CP3 refers to ‘resurfacing Canal footpath from Rowton Bridge Road to Great Boughton’. It outlines that ‘These priorities require funding with help from S106 contributions from all future housing developments.’
The Trust welcome reference to towpath surface improvements being part of delivering active travel routes within the Neighbourhood Plan Area in principle, that would require help from S106 contributions, which would have to be in line with the statutory tests.

Other Advice

The prior consent of the Trust would be required in connection with boating/recreational activities along the Canal. General enquiries can be sent to ‘business.boating@canalrivertrust.org.uk’.

Please find a link to our website for guidance on operating a boating business on the navigation. https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/business-boating/starting-or-expanding-a-boating-business.

Any works to towpaths, formal accesses to join towpaths, or works to Trust owned land, would require the prior consent of the Trust, and enquiries should be directed to the Trust’s Estate Management Team at enquiries.northwest@canalrivertrust.org.uk
The Trust has prepared a ‘Towpath Design’ document providing guidance on towpath design and construction. The Trust advise that many towpaths are not Public Rights of Way, and the Trust retain the right to close towpaths for maintenance works.
Any works to the towpath, formal accesses to join the towpath or works to Trust owned land, will also need to be designed/agreed with the Trust and comply with the ‘Trust’s Code of Practice for works affecting the Canal and River Trust’. The applicant should in the first instance contact the Trust’s Infrastructure Services Team at Enquiries.TPWNorth@canalrivertrust.org.uk

In the interests of achieving enjoyment of towpaths, the Trust has a ‘Better Towpaths for Everyone’ Policy, which refers to considerate use of the network to address the needs of the broad range of towpath users and to achieve the right balance between them.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/donate/our-campaigns/stay-kind-slow-down/better-towpaths-for-everyone

I hope the above is of assistance and I would be happy to discuss these matters further.