Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 15820

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16379
This approach is also a preferred approach to option A as it ensures new homes are located close to existing services and facilities and generally provides a more equal distribution of development across the Borough. In addition, the location of new development is not restricted to outside of Green Belt locations simply due to the historical designation. Particularly where these locations may otherwise conflict with other principles of development. Consideration of the bus network is considered to be a key factor in applying this approach as the rail network in the borough is limited to the North, and focussing new development here is likely to come at the expense of the bus network. That is, if limited levels of new homes were provided in the south of the Borough and bus useage in this part of the Borough reduced as a result, services would also reduce and result in a spiral of decline for the bus service in the south of the Borough. To ensure this does not happen new homes need to also be provided along key bus routes. In applying this approach account must also be had to the level of other key services and facilities in the rural settlements and the accessibility of these for new development. Developing walkable neighbourhoods is also key to encouraging sustainable and healthy communities, and ultimately reducing the need to travel by private car, and align with the Council’s Climate Emergency Response Plan. Importantly new housing of at least past Local Plan proportions needs to be allocated to the rural area notably identified Key Service Centres in order to maintain their transport status and overcome the declining bus service. The required new Local Plan Transport Assessment should clearly consider the level of housing required to support the Bus network in the rural area to maintain and improve its services in this important part of the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 15846

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16405
Ultimately to ensure a sustainable pattern of residential development over the plan period public transport availability must be taken into account alongside the availability of local services and facilities. It should not be considered in isolation. Again, the required new Local Plan Transport Assessment should clearly consider the level of housing required to support the Bus network in the rural area to maintain and improve its services in this important part of the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 15848

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16407
It is suggested the following factors be taken in to account when considering new allocations: Sustainability and Accessibility: with consideration including proximity to public transport, services, employment, and existing infrastructure; Environmental Constraints: with consideration including flood risk, biodiversity impact, heritage assets, landscape sensitivity, and climate resilience; Deliverability and Viability: with consideration including land availability, ownership, infrastructure requirements, and financial feasibility; Infrastructure Capacity: with consideration including ability of utilities, highways, schools, and health facilities to accommodate growth; Alignment with Policy Objectives: with consideration including consistency with national planning policy, housing needs, economic growth targets, and regeneration priorities; Community and Social Considerations: with consideration including potential for creating cohesive, mixed, and healthy communities with good design; and Site Suitability and Scale: with consideration including physical characteristics (size, topography, access) and compatibility with surrounding uses. In respect of the site put forward in Cuddington there are no major constraints to a future residential development in principle when reviewing the sites against this list of  considerations.

Comment

Representation ID: 15851

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16410
CUD04 is considered to be a suitable, and common sense, growth option for new housing in Cuddington: it is located close to the centre of Cuddington, including the train station, and therefore provides a realistic opportunity to reduce travel by private vehicles and therefore represents the most sustainable option for new development in Cuddington; this area is located close to Cuddington local centre, and provide an opportunity to expand and enhance the vitality and viability of the local centre and businesses located in the and around the local centre; the site is relatively free from development constraints, and certainly not subject to any determinative constraints; whilst this area of growth is located wholly in the Green Belt, it is surrounded by development on two of its three sides, and is not making a significant contribution to the openness and character of the North Cheshire Green Belt given its context. Ultimately this area of growth is not contributing to the five purposes of the Green Belt given its context; growth in this area would make a sensible ‘rounding off’ of the settlement; and - the first part of this area of growth is in the control of an active landowner willing to bring it forward now, with an estimated capacity for 50-60 new homes together with public open space. We fully support this area of growth, and believe it should be considered as a suitable area of growth under all of the options put forward by the Local Plan as we consider that this area of growth is ‘Grey Belt’ land as defined in the NPPF. Whilst this area is not previously developed land: land that does not contribute to checking un restricted sprawl of an existing built up area, as it already has development on two of its three sides; land that does not contribute to preventing two towns merging, as both developed sides of the site form part of Cuddington; land that does not contribute to preserving the setting and character of a historic town as the nearest part of the Cuddington Conservation Area is over 400 metres to the east of the Site and separated by built form of the existing village; and the Site is not subject to any of the designations in footnote 7 of the NPPF, which would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development i.e. it is not designated as Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park; does not contain irreplaceable habitats or  designated heritage assets; and is not in an area at risk of flooding. Therefore this area of growth should be classified as Grey Belt and should be considered acceptable in all options of the emerging Local Plan. The Site subject of these representations are within this area of growth, and are of a sufficient scale to make a difference to meeting the housing needs in the village without having any significant impact on local services and facilities. Moreover, supporting the allocations of this site will enact the NPPF’s support for small-medium size sites and SME developers. In respect of the other areas for growth in Cuddington and Sandiway: CUD01 and CUD05 are located to the north of the village, wholly in open Green Belt, the suitability of these areas of growth will therefore need to be considered in a forthcoming Green Belt Assessment; CUD02 and CUD03 are both located outside of the Green Belt, but not is a sustainable location, they are located furthest from the village’s existing services and facilities, in particular the train station which would not be within walking distance and therefore the potential for new households making use of sustainable transport links to the rest of the Borough would not apply.  Moreover these areas of growth would be separated from the existing village by the A556, which is a significant barrier to creating a cohesive community. In effect, without any comprehensive consideration to a change in infrastructure, growth in this location would become a new settlement that would be reliant on travel by private cars, as opposed to forming part of the existing community. Overall CUD04 is considered to be the most appropriate area for growth, and given that it is a clear candidate for Grey Belt land it should be considered as an area of growth for the village for all of the options put forward for the emerging Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 15894

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16453
Whilst CUD04 would not comply with Option A as put forward in this Issues and Options document at present. As set out above once a Green Belt assessment has been undertaken it is anticipated that this area of growth will become suitable for all options of the emerging Local Plan because of it falling within the definition of Grey Belt. Moreover this area of growth would clearly round off the settlement, and locate development in a sustainable location, close to the heart of the communities services and facilities in  Cuddington.

Comment

Representation ID: 15895

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16454
From review of the ‘Places Background Paper- Cuddington and Sandiway’ there are no constraints to new development in Cuddington and Sandiway. The settlement already benefits from a range of retail and community services and facilities, including bus and rail links. The only constraint to the site these representations are promoting is the Green Belt designation, which as set out above is not applicable to CUD04 due to the Government’s introduction of the definition of Grey Belt land in the NPPF and the context of this area of growth. In respect of all other sustainable development considerations this area of growth is well placed to provide much needed homes, rounding the settlement off and providing homes close to existing services and facilities and the train station.

Comment

Representation ID: 15898

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16457
Until the policy approach is identified, amendments to these policies are very uncertain.

Comment

Representation ID: 15899

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16458
Yes, there should be separate policies for land that will continue to be designated Green Belt and Open Countryside in the emerging Local Plan given the different status and levels of protection that these areas are given in National Policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 15900

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16459
Developer contributions sought should be: necessary, directly related, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind in accordance with the NPPF. As set out in the Planning Practice Guidance ‘Plan makers should consider the combined total impact of such requests so they do not undermine the deliverability of the plan’ 2, i.e. combined planning contributions should not render the deliverability of allocated sites as unviable. Therefore as the Local Plan progresses, and a complete picture of contributions likely to be sought through emerging policies for new developments becomes clear, there should be a test of viability to ensure any contributions set out in policy will not render new development in the plan period to be unviable. 2 See Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 23b-003-20190901

Comment

Representation ID: 15902

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16461
We consider that ‘major development’ should be defined as schemes of 100-200 no. homes plus.