Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 6841

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7277
No sites to suggest. The Council should undertake a transparent site search process using agreed criteria, rather than relying on speculative applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 6843

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7279
Broadly yes – health must be embedded in all planning decisions. The policy could be strengthened by: - Requiring health impact statements for all major developments. - Embedding 'infrastructure first' for health facilities alongside housing growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 6844

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7280
Health impact assessments should be required for all major residential schemes (50+ dwellings) and for non-residential proposals likely to affect traffic, air quality, or local services. Thresholds must be proportionate but not so high that important impacts are missed.

Comment

Representation ID: 6849

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7285
Minimum distances should be maintained to safeguard privacy, light, and outlook.

Comment

Representation ID: 6851

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7287
Unsure on how much - but every dwelling should have access to private or shared usable outdoor space. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6853

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7289
Yes - policies should restrict hot food takeaways within 400m of schools, prevent over-concentration in centres, and require consideration of litter, noise, and health impacts. This would help address obesity, anti-social behaviour, and environmental quality concerns.

Comment

Representation ID: 6855

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7291
Broadly support - but the policy should be strengthened to: - Ensure new open space is delivered on-site wherever possible, not just through financial contributions. - Link open space provision directly to health and wellbeing outcomes, ensuring integration with green infrastructure and biodiversity networks. - Place a stronger emphasis on protecting playing fields and preventing incremental losses through piecemeal applications. - Require evidence of replacement or compensatory provision to be secured and operational before development begins.

Comment

Representation ID: 6856

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7292
The current thresholds are a reasonable starting point, but they should be reviewed to: - Ensure smaller developments contribute proportionately, as cumulative growth places pressure on facilities. - Reflect local variations – rural settlements may need lower thresholds due to limited existing provision. - Secure contributions for maintenance and long-term management, not just new provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 6858

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7294
The current evidence (Open Space Study 2016–2030, Playing Pitch Strategy 2021, 2025 Update) provides a foundation, but it must be updated regularly to reflect: - Population changes and housing growth proposed in the new Local Plan. - Shifts in leisure trends (e.g. growing demand for informal recreation, cycling, walking). - Local deficits in rural areas where access to facilities is already poor - facilities could be duel purpose (i.e better pathways, clear PROWs, better roads - can substitute 'facilities' in rural areas)

Comment

Representation ID: 6859

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Councillors)

I&O_7295
There should be some flexibility, but the policy must prioritise on-site provision to ensure new communities have immediate access to open space. Off-site or financial contributions should only be acceptable where: - Sites are too small to provide meaningful on-site space. - High-quality, accessible alternatives exist within safe walking distance. - Financial contributions are ring-fenced for local provision with delivery timescales agreed.