Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 6784

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7211
A consistent borough-wide threshold should apply, with flexibility to reduce thresholds in areas where high unmet affordable need is evident. Applying a blanket lower threshold to all rural areas would unnecessarily make some smaller developments supported by the new NPPF unviable.   

Comment

Representation ID: 6787

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7214
Yes  broadly retain DM 19, DM 21 and DM 22 with updates. Policies must: - Protect garden land and prevent inappropriate development. - Retain strict countryside criteria, supporting only infill or rural exceptions tied to genuine local need. - Prevent suburbanisation of rural settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 6795

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7222
Yes  they remain relevant. They provide important safeguards against inappropriate development and should be retained with minor updates for clarity.

Comment

Representation ID: 6799

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7228
Yes – the Local Plan should add clarity - e.g. - Define small-scale/subordinate extensions (e.g. max 30% increase). - Provide criteria for replacement dwellings. - Prevent 'creeping enlargement' that erodes openness. The term is banded about frequently with a general inconsistency in what it actually means. This clarity would be helpful.

Comment

Representation ID: 6800

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7230
Yes – policies should address: - Infill/backland development harming character. - Intensification of gardens and garage conversions reducing amenity and parking. - Protecting the balance of housing stock in villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 6802

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7232
Yes - this should be supported in town centres where it helps regeneration, provided it does not displace active retail frontages at ground level.

Comment

Representation ID: 6806

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7237
Yes  retain DM 25 but strengthen safeguards: - Size limits to keep dwellings affordable and functional. - Legal agreements tying dwellings to land-based businesses. - Ensure re-use for affordable housing should agricultural use cease.

Comment

Representation ID: 6808

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7239
Covenants requiring dwellings to be offered as affordable housing to local people once no longer needed as a rural worker dwelling?

Comment

Representation ID: 6810

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7241
Yes - elements such as financial tests, business linkage requirements, and 106 m² size cap should be incorporated to provide clarity and consistency in decision making.

Comment

Representation ID: 6811

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7243
Yes – a policy is needed to support small-scale, community-led schemes where: - Local need is evidenced by Parish Councils or equivalent local body. - Sites are proportionate, adjacent to settlements, and not in sensitive designations. - Affordability is secured in perpetuity. The national size limits should not be exceeded – as surely this would impact affordability?