Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 14830

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15381
At paragraph 1.23, it is noted that the Council think that the updated Local Plan should plan for a period of 15 years. Paragraph 22 of the 2024 NPPF notes that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption. NPPF paragraph 22 also states that where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years) to take into account the likely timescale for delivery. It is considered that a variety of site sizes will require allocation in order to meet housing requirements, ranging from small, medium (such as Frog Lane, which has capacity to deliver around 400 homes) to larger sites. It is therefore considered that the Local Plan should extend beyond the minimum 15-year period, to cover at least 20 years (as per the current Local Plan) to ensure plan-led development will be delivered in CW&C. An elongated plan period is also likely to be required noting some of the potential growth areas, if allocated, comprise substantial landholdings. For example, in Ellesmere Port, EP01 suggests a housing capacity of 5,517 homes and 66ha of employment land. The scale of this development would clearly extend well beyond a 15-year plan period and would take a number of years before it could start to deliver.

Comment

Representation ID: 14831

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15382
At Table 5.2, the SA contains a high-level assessment of spatial options A,B and C against key objectives – which score the same against all objectives, with the following (not all) notable exceptions: • Option A (Retain the Green Belt) scores worse (amber) than the other two options in respect of infrastructure – reducing the need to travel and encouraging sustainable modes of transport. • Options B (current LP level and distribution) and C (sustainable transport corridors) score worse (red) in respect of conserving and enhancing the historic environment objective. • Options B & C score better than option A under climate change and reduction of air pollution objectives. As we explain throughout these Representations, it is considered that a blended spatial option/approach will be required in order to sustainably meet housing requirements. No spatial option in isolation will be sufficient. Clearly, the SA also takes a very high-level approach – when in reality, development and allocations should be settlement capacity and site-led, to deliver the best and most suitable options for development across the plan area. Due to the early stage of the Local Plan making process, we note the SA (and Consultation Paper) at this stage only refer to delivery of a minimum of 1,914 dwellings per annum. As required at NPPF paragraph 36, Local Plans must be justified – taking into account reasonable alternatives. One such alternative will be to explore a higher growth option which is higher than the standard method figure, which is a minimum starting point2.  Regardless of what spatial option is ultimately chosen by the Council, it is our view that Tattenhall could support up to 1,500 dwellings as set out in Option A and that this is the target the Council should seek to maintain for the settlement through the next draft iteration of the plan. Indeed, what is evident is that Tattenhall comprises of a range of key local services that make it a sustainable location to accommodate new family housing and affordable housing. This includes local shops, a GP/Medical Practice, a two-form primary school, sports grounds and facilities, a community hall and employment areas (including Chowley Business Park located to the south). There is capacity at the local primary school (which operates at circa 70-75% capacity). More generally, there is a need to invest in the settlement to ensure that its existing services are well supported and utilised so they can continue to provide a benefit to existing and new residents. Housing growth will aid this objective. Whilst we note that there are capacity issues in relation to the GP/Medical Practice, Bolseworth Estate has various property options that could facilitate their relocation and growth. The release of developable land at Frog Lane would assist in ensuring that a solution for the medical practice could be delivered (either through delivery on site or better still, through the linked provision of a facility within/adjacent to the town centre that would make use of existing buildings that could be captured by any future Section 106 agreement relating to the Frog Lane site).

Comment

Representation ID: 14832

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15383
No particular comments at this early stage, in the absence of site-specific assessments

Comment

Representation ID: 14833

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15384
Bolesworth is wholly supportive of, and recognises the importance of, the Neighbourhood Plan process. To date, the Estate has actively engaged with Tattenhall Parish Council (who are in the process of reviewing the adopted Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan) and have been promoting the Frog Lane site for residential allocation within the Neighbourhood Plan. Bolesworth continue to engage with the Parish Council on this matter. It is important to note that any Neighbourhood Plan must be in general conformity with the Development Plan and not undermine its strategic development requirements. As the new Local Plan will need to deliver substantial housing growth over the plan period, there is therefore a need to allocate additional sites. Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan needs to allocate additional site(s) for housing – and Frog Lane is considered the best option, noting the Estate’s ability to think strategically in respect of benefits for Tattenhall due to their significant landholdings. 

Comment

Representation ID: 14834

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15385
Bolesworth support the Council’s position (as clarified at paragraph 1, page 22) that: “The new Local Plan must plan to meet the government’s housing target (the standard method number) which was revised in December 2024. The Council has no choice in this.” Indeed, Paragraph 62 of the December 2024 NPPF makes it clear that the local housing need figure represents the minimum number of homes required. The latest standard method (SM) figures have recently been updated following the publication of the latest affordability ratios in March 2025 and 2024 housing stock data (published May 2025). The latest SM for CW&C is now 1,928, which equates to 28,920 dwellings over a 15 - year period (or 38,560 over a 20-year period). In light of the recent data, CW&C therefore need to plan for a minimum of 1,928 dwellings per annum. Notably, NPPF paragraph 69 states that the housing requirement for a Plan may be higher than the identified housing need (standard method) if, for example, it reflects growth ambitions linked to economic development or infrastructure investment. Enterprise Cheshire and Warrington (ECW) have a series of initiatives to grow the regional economy, including CW&C, which will increase housing demand. Accordingly, 1,928 dwellings per annum should very much be viewed as the minimum requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 14835

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15386
Bolesworth do not support a stepped/staggered approach to housing delivery over the plan period. An even distribution of delivery throughout the plan period is achievable when a mixture of small, medium and large sites are appropriately allocated. Furthermore, CW&C has an acute 5-year housing supply shortfall, with their latest ‘Housing Land Monitor Summary Report 2025’ confirming a supply of just 1.9 years at 1st April 2025 (see footnote 3 below), equating to a shortfall of 6,250 homes by 20303. As such CW&C will actually require elevated delivery within the early years of the plan period to address this shortfall, and must encourage this within the emerging plan. It is also important to note that as the new standard method calculation takes account of past over/under delivery, the housing trajectory of the plan must look forward from the point of adoption.

Comment

Representation ID: 14836

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15387
Bolesworth fully supports the suggested policy approach outlined at Policy SS 3. There will be insufficient brownfield land within existing settlement boundaries to meet CW&C substantial housing requirements alone. This is particularly the case in Tattenhall, where brownfield development options are few and far between. This is evidenced in the Council’s latest brownfield land register4, which confirms only one brownfield site (within the Estate’s ownership) is currently registered with the Council in Tattenhall and is already consented to deliver 7 no. dwellings (with developer interest). Therefore, there is clearly a need to allocate additional sites which are sustainably located on the edge of existing settlements (including Frog Lane, Tattenhall). 

Comment

Representation ID: 14837

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15388
Policy SS 4 notes how the following settlements have a level of facilities and services that mean they can meet the day-to-day needs of their residents and those living in surrounding areas: Cuddington and Sandiway Farndon Helsby Kelsall Malpas Tarporley Tarvin Tattenhall Depending on the spatial strategy option selected for the new Local Plan, the consultation paper notes that these settlements may be amended. Whilst not defined within emerging policy SS 4, all of these settlements are currently designated as Key Service Centres in the adopted Local Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, it is considered that future versions of the Local Plan should clarify that these settlements will be defined as Key Service Centres. Notwithstanding the above clarification point, Bolesworth fully support the continued identification of Tattenhall as a Key Service Centre in the emerging Local Plan. Tattenhall is well placed to accommodate additional levels of growth, noting that Tattenhall (as confirmed in the Places Background Paper 2024): Is a designated local centre in retail terms, home to a number of facilities including a SPAR, nursery, post office, pharmacy and pubs. Has a primary school, GP practice and community centre (Barbour Institute). Is well served by sports facilities – including football and cricket clubs. Benefits from bus connectivity/services to Chester (38-minute bus journey) and other destinations such as Whitchurch. Tattenhall is also not constrained by Green Belt. Whilst Tattenhall benefits from a number of existing amenities and services (many of which are within Bolesworth’s ownership), as also confirmed in the Places Background Paper, the village has an ageing population – with the age profile showing that the highest percentage of residents are between 70 and 74. Furthermore, 51% of residents are in employment, which is lower than the borough figure. In light of the above, it is clear that there is a significant need for additional family housing in Tattenhall – which can be suitably supported by the existing infrastructure but will also address the ageing population profile. Furthermore, there is also a need to attract new families to the area to support the ongoing vitality of the village, with Tattenhall Park Primary School under-subscribed at just 73% of its capacity5. Land at Frog Lane represents a highly suitable and sustainable site which can support the growth of Tattenhall (including the provision of much needed family homes), as discussed throughout these representations.

Comment

Representation ID: 14838

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15389
It is considered that allocations for these settlements, including Tattenhall, can be dealt with in a similar manner to adopted policy STRAT 8 of the Part 1 Local Plan, which sets out the minimum housing required for each settlement. As set out above, we consider Tattenhall can accommodate up to 1,500 dwellings as set out in Option A, particularly given Bolesworth Estate can deliver a range of infrastructure benefits (including the ability to provide a relocation option for the medical centre and land for flood management and BNG) and also own the allotments and sporting facilities within the village which Bolesworth could expand if required.

Comment

Representation ID: 14839

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15390
Bolesworth wish to express their support for the need to still deliver development in smaller settlements where it is demonstrated they can support growth – i.e. development which can be sustainably supported by existing services and infrastructure. Indeed, this is supported by NPPF paragraph 83, which under the subtitle rural housing states: “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services” However, there is also a need to consider the ability for settlements to deliver additional infrastructure which can support a higher level of growth. As already explained at paragraph 1.14, Bolesworth is uniquely placed to deliver additional infrastructure in Tattenhall which can support higher levels of growth in Tattenhall and at Frog Lane (circa 400 homes).