Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 6686

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7106
Areas of flood risk should not be a blanket ‘showstopper’, because this might not reflect real world circumstances and will not take into account the potential for site-specific flood risk assessments and hydraulic modelling to demonstrate that sites are not at risk of flooding and won’t increase flood risk elsewhere. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6688

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7108
The council should take account of the key site deliverability criteria of NPPF, as fundamentally sites should be viable and deliverable. Key factors such as access by all means, availability of infrastructure, ownership/control and sustainability ought to be considered.  However, allocate should take account of site/s ability to mitigate any impacts rather than merely see existing infrastructure as a bar to future development.    

Comment

Representation ID: 6689

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7109
In response to Questions SS 20 – 22, the ‘showstoppers’ should exclude areas of flood risk, where site-specific evidence shows that flood risk can be mitigated and that there is general betterment to the site and surrounding areas.  This would reflect a ‘real world’ scenario, rather than a high-level Environment Agency map that is regularly challenged and found to be of less accuracy and reliability than local modelling and assessment.

Comment

Representation ID: 6691

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7111
The Council have identified three growth options. HEL03 is the most suitable.  It includes land already allocated for development in the Local Plan under reference R.3B Land at Mere’s Edge and subject to planning application 24/03823/OUT; it also includes land subject to a forthcoming planning application for appropriate residential development in the grey belt. A detailed grey belt assessment has been prepared for this imminent planning application, in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance, and is included alongside these representations.  This confirms that the land is grey belt and can be developed without harm to the Green Belt.  The land is bound by the A56, A5117, the railway, the allocated site R.3B  and under-construction residential development.  It  is thus separated from the wider Green Belt by strong defensible boundaries, and relates better to Helsby.  Further, technical site assessments have confirmed that there are no ‘showstopper’ constraints to the development of this area. The development will include active travel links, improved public transport provision and generous open space. Brookhouse have engaged with Helsby Parish Council and Dunham-on-the-Hill and Hapsford Parish Council for several years, firstly in association with their successful regeneration of the former Ineos site including Tesco and new homes, latterly in respect of a potential masterplan for the Mere’s Edge sites.  The land is ripe for development without extending Helsby beyond its logical defensible boundaries of the railway and the A5117. HEL01 would extend Helsby to the north-east.  It would significantly erode the gap between Helsby and Frodsham, contributing to coalescence of the two settlements.  We also note FRO003 is a potential growth area to the west of Frodsham, which would extend to the easternmost edge of HEL01.  Frodsham and Helsby are separate settlements with separate characters and therefore their merging would be harmful, and contrary to the Green Belt tests of NPPF. The other two growth options at Frodsham (FR001 and FR0002) are both within the Sandstone Ridge National Character Area, and therefore the potential National Landscape designation, and therefore are less likely to be allocated than FR003. HEL02 would extend Helsby to the south-east, in an area which has topographical constraints and which is generally more rural in character.  Helsby is a linear settlement stretching along the A56 / A5117 and railway corridor; HEL02 would contradict this form and would erode the rural edge. It would require Green Belt release in an area with limited defensible boundaries.  HEL03 would constitute grey belt development in an area that feels part of Helsby due it its physical relationship and strong boundaries.    Therefore, HEL03 is clearly the most suitable growth option for Helsby.

Comment

Representation ID: 6693

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7113
We support the identification of growth around Helsby, and consider that sites of  a reasonable scale are required in order to build upon the settlements and its accessibility /facilities.   Larger allocations are required to provide the infrastructure to support development.  

Comment

Representation ID: 6694

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7114
Brookhouse has delivered significant development in Helsby over a sustained period of time.  They have current and pending applications for more residential development in the HEL03 location.  They have undertaken technical studies on key matters such as highways/access and flood risk which has shown that Helsby does not have any key infrastructure constraints.   

Comment

Representation ID: 6696

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7116
Yes – policy needs to reflect the updated study and identify or refer to ares which might be identified as grey belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 6697

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7117
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 6698

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7118
Yes - we support development being focused on settlements with good public transport accessibility and access to services.  Settlements like Helsby should be prioritise for development as it has train, bus, walking/cycling and a range of services.

Comment

Representation ID: 6699

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7119
We agree the overarching approach but any policy must include for viability review to ensure that S106 contributions do not render development undeliverable.