Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 7955

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8444
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 7958

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8447
Yes – although guidance on scale would be helpful – noting here that registered providers struggle to be interested in and/or face challenges in managing stock upon very small rural sites


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 7959

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8448
To all settlements regardless of size


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 7960

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8449
Yes - as recognised by NPPF82


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 7961

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8450
No – the policy should remove the wording “potentially requiring provision on larger residential sites”.


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 7962

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8451
No – this is not appropriate as it would tie large scale allocations to the delivery of a product that is unknown and uncontrolled


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 7963

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8452
Evidence is needed to justify the demand otherwise the Authority is simply going to attract more uncontrolled and unsustainable camps from outside of the Borough – for instance if the housing need is 29,000 this equates to 232 pitches


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 7964

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8453
No and R2 could be deleted. R2 was a “reaction” policy to an overwhelming demand at a point in time due to intense pressure placed upon the settlement by speculative developments. Tattenhall is not a special case. However, it is important to recognise that the plans overarching spatial and sustainable development polices recognise the demands placed upon all rural settlements and the need to deliver sustainable levels of development that maintain and enhance sustainability.


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.