Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 6638

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7058
Yes, but only where they respect rural character. Appropriate uses include: - Small-scale renewable energy on rooftops or brownfield land (not large-scale solar on farmland). - Reuse/conversion of redundant buildings for local housing or small business use. - Rural tourism/leisure where landscape and biodiversity are enhanced rather than harmed.

Comment

Representation ID: 6639

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7059
Yes - redevelopment should be limited to the same use or other policy-compliant uses. This avoids speculative schemes that urbanise the countryside or erode rural character.

Comment

Representation ID: 6641

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7061
Rural character can be protected through: - Strong settlement gap policies to prevent coalescence. - Design codes requiring rural-appropriate scale, form, and materials. - Restricting lighting, signage, and suburbanising features. - Careful control of road/transport infrastructure to avoid urbanising rural settings.

Comment

Representation ID: 6643

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7063
Broadly yes - but it must recognise that in rural areas such as Marbury, public transport is too limited to provide a realistic alternative to the car. Policies should: - Require infrastructure upgrades (e.g. Winnington Bridge replacement) before major allocations. - Support rural bus services and rail station improvements, but not use them as justification for large-scale rural growth. - Ensure transport assessments realistically reflect car-first travel patterns in rural communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 6648

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7068
Yes - a sustainable transport hierarchy is sensible. However, it must be applied flexibly in rural areas where walking, cycling, and public transport options are limited. Otherwise, the policy risks being unrealistic and undermining delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 6652

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7072
The following should be retained and prioritised: - Winnington Swing Bridge replacement as a critical constraint on Northwich. - Safeguarding for improvements at Hartford, Lostock Gralam, Cuddington, and Acton Bridge stations Schemes that should be modified: - Any new freight/industrial proposals must be tied to strong environmental safeguards.

Comment

Representation ID: 6654

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7074
Yes - additional schemes should include: - Investment in rural bus connectivity, ensuring at least hourly services in key settlements. - Active travel routes linking villages to Northwich, integrated with canal towpaths and greenways.

Comment

Representation ID: 6662

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7082
Broadly yes - but the policy must be strengthened to ensure infrastructure is delivered up front or at least in tandem with development. Key changes should include: - A binding Infrastructure Delivery Plan that sets out costs, funding, and phasing. - Clear milestones (e.g. no more than 100 homes occupied until new school/GP/road is in place). - Transparent viability testing – developers should not use 'viability' to dilute obligations. - Ensure food security, flood resilience, and utilities infrastructure are included as core priorities.

Comment

Representation ID: 6664

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7084
No - smaller developments can still cumulatively impact infrastructure, particularly in rural areas like Marbury. Developer contributions should apply proportionately to all developments, not just large-scale ones.

Comment

Representation ID: 6668

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7088
Yes - developers must meet the full cost of infrastructure needed to support their sites. The Council should not carry the financial burden, particularly where any greenfield development is proposed.