Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 7931

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8420
Through a sensibly worded policy that seeks to protect heritage assets and recognise that structural tests may be relevant and design solutions are sympathetic as opposed to being obstructive


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

Comment

Representation ID: 7932

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8421
No – the section on “rail lines and station” considers that the premise is to re-open and extend such facilities – yet it is quite possible that such consideration is simply nether viable or sustainable – for instance a small rural station being expanded is likely to benefit only a handful of residents whose ambition is simply to commute to Manchester or Liverpool as opposed to using the network internally and it pre-supposes that if it were to become a node for housing growth that there exists sufficient other community and enviro-engineering infrastructure capable of supporting and sustaining new development


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

Comment

Representation ID: 7933

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8422
It’s a fair approach but needs to reflect NPPF110 in recognising that not all sites are accessible urban-centric ones


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

Comment

Representation ID: 7934

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8423
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)


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

Comment

Representation ID: 7935

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8424
Electrified line from Chester to Manchester, Liverpool and Crewe – it is unacceptable that it often takes over an hour to reach these destinations (Mchr and Liv) by the current rail service and that services cease to operate after 10pm at night


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

Comment

Representation ID: 7937

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8426
To a degree – however, the policy for this and other related contribution policies need to be integrated and joined up. Communities are rightly concerned that when new development comes along that it is sustainable in delivering the infrastructure needed to support it. Often capacity exists but this is overlooked by many. However, perceived and real pressures upon infrastructure clearly exist and it is important that where there is a requirement this is provided. The fact is that development cannot always fund affordable housing, POS, BNG, CIL and a host of other commuted sums and enviro-engineering infrastructure and there may be occasions where this is accepted and that the delivery of growth can introduce viability issues. The Policy needs to be flexible and enable staircasing for affordable housing. Notwithstanding this, with all things considered, the site being promoted here can, we believe, accommodate a sustainable and viable development. The most appropriate mechanism would be through direct contributions and/or CIL subject to viability. However, where spatial growth ambitions are being advanced (through the Local Plan) it is important that the providers of utilities (power, water, etc), health, education, transport and other agencies actually engage and ensure their capital programmes are tailored to meet future development needs. It is not the role of the planning system to address shortfalls in the provision of staff in key public services. Planning conditions and obligations can only be used to secure physical infrastructure where there is evidence that this is necessary to adequately accommodate additional demand arising from a particular development. Where there are “gaps” these should be identified in an IDP and this is where the Policies of CIL and the Local Plan can combine to secure the necessary contributions.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 7938

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8427
No - the fact is that it should be a requirement for applicants to make provision, through planning obligations and commensurate with the scale of development, for infrastructure to be provided where existing capacity would not meet the additional demands and needs of new development, subject to viability. However, CIL captures all development – small and large; yet thresholds are generally applied for Affordable Housing and POS – at what level they are applied and sought is down to thresholds and percentages being applied through Policy. There is an argument that exemptions for all contributions should be put in place for individual applicants where the scheme is 2 or less dwelling units.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 7939

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8428
No – statutory providers have an obligation to provide additional resource and capacity through their own capital programmes. The development sector cannot be expected to pay for additional doctors when the responsibility for this is with the NHS, they cannot be expected to pay for new reservoirs when this is the responsibility of the water companies.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 7940

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8429
An Infrastructure Delivery Plan would be the best vehicle and one that is linked to Place Plans – so that CIL and other contributions can be targeted appropriately.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 7941

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

I&O_8430
Yes


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