Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 6656

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

VI 1
I&O_7076
We agree with the vision in general and support ‘vibrant towns’ and delivery of development in sustainable locations.   The four Principles are sound.  The ‘promoting wellbeing’ objective should be amended to recognise the importance of a home to wellbeing and addressing social issues: “Promoting wellbeing – enabling all to enjoy safe and healthy lifestyles with a good quality of life and ensuring everyone has a decent home”. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6658

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

VI3
I&O_7078
The principle of larger settlements to have an individual vision is reasonable but these must be fully aligned with the overall vision.  This list is settlements does not include other important settlements such as Helsby which is sustainable and able to accommodate housing.  Such settlements must be identified in the settlement hierarchy and afforded sufficient guidance to support their growth.   

Comment

Representation ID: 6659

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

OB 1
I&O_7079
We consider that neither option is right and that a new local plan should set its objectives afresh having undertaken the evidence base research to understand what the key priorities for the borough are, and areas to address in terms of housing, employment and infrastructure.  It must also align with NPPF.   

Comment

Representation ID: 6660

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7080
We generally support the objectives set but they need to be refreshed in light of the evidence base.

Comment

Representation ID: 6661

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

OB 4
I&O_7081
We do not support rolling forward the objectives listed as they are underpinned by key matters that are no longer appropriate, e.g. maintaining the Green Belt, focusing development in Chester, Ellesmere Port and Winsford, and taking a brownfield first approach.   

Comment

Representation ID: 6665

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

OB 5
I&O_7085
No - these objectives are not set holistically so only focus on sustainability matters.  They need to be balanced with other planning considerations as informed by the evidence base work to create holistic objectives to allow the borough to best meet its needs in a balanced way.

Comment

Representation ID: 6667

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

SD 1
I&O_7087
The objectives set are too detailed, duplicate guidance in NPPF and are thus unnecessary.  For example point 2 states “all new buildings should include solar panels unless it can be shown that this is impractical or unviable”.  Technology is changing fast and it is too prescriptive when other alternatives my offer a better option.  The list of items cannot be a ‘must’ for new development as not all sites can deliver green and blue infrastructure (e.g city centre sites).

Comment

Representation ID: 6669

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

SS 1
I&O_7089
There are no reasons for the Council to plan to deliver less than the minimum of 1,914 new homes each year. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6670

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7090
The council should not set a stepped housing requirement that plans for a lower level of housing delivery earlier in the plan period, as this runs contrary to the NPPF push to deliver more homes.  The council cannot currently demonstrate a 5YLS and is someway short of a 5 year supply, as such there is an urgent need for homes so throttling back requirements will only exacerbate the undersupply.  Rather a greater requirement should be set at the start the plan period.    

Comment

Representation ID: 6671

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7091
We agree with the principle of establishing a settlement hierarchy however it needs to be based on a thorough understanding of the settlements and the range of services offered, including public transport, schools, healthcare, social facilities and shops.  It must consider the number and scale of such facilities.  Helsby is a settlement that possesses a wide range and scale of facilities and therefore ought to be ranked more than a local service centre or this recognised in its local centre ranking.  It is strategically located on main road and rail corridors and in the axis between Manchester/Warrington and Chester/Liverpool, in close proximity to major employment  around Ellesmere Port. The combination of its strategic location and the services it offers, elevates it above other similarly ranked settlements like Tattenhall or Tarvin.   We consider it meets more than the day-to-day needs of residents, and due to its connectivity ought to be prioritised/differentiated from settlements like Kelsall, Tattenhall or Tarvin, which are smaller settlements with fewer facilities and which do not benefit from having train station access.  The hierarchy needs refining as its categories are too crude.  Helsby whilst  not a market town is a higher scoring service centre.