Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 336

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

Map 5.5
I&O_367
Question SS 27 Development in Ellesmere Port has resulted in uncontrolled spawl, engulfing Great and Little Sutton and now threatening Capenhurst. The first priority should be redevelopment (especially of surface car parks) and densification within the town. Development in Area EP01, between the A5117 and M56, is particularly to be avoided as it intrudes on the Green Belt separating Ellesmere Port from Chester.

Comment

Representation ID: 337

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

CH 1
I&O_368
Question CH 1 We query the approach ‘Increasing opportunities for people to live in the heart of the city through the right mix of housing and creating high quality places’ if this leads to the displacement of retail and other businesses, as it leads to people making more journeys in a variety of directions, increasing the pressure to use cars.

Comment

Representation ID: 338

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

CH 1
I&O_369
Question CH 2 We query the potential use of the Dale Barracks for housing because of its remoteness from local facilities

Comment

Representation ID: 339

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

I&O_370
Question  CH 4 Paragraph 6.2 of the suggested policy approach states that ‘Chester is the area with one of best levels and opportunities for public transport use, walking and wheeling’, but there is no mention of making walking and wheeling easier and more attractive, apart from a new Hoole Road bridge. How would the Hoole Road Corridor be improved for cyclists? We have emphasised the potential of the city in this regard numerous times and made suggestions for urban cycleways, most recently in our response to the LTP4 Core Strategy, which should be taken as our answer to this question.

Comment

Representation ID: 340

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

6.7
I&O_371
The existing policies regarding the protection of Chester’s historic character and setting are satisfactory; it is their implementation that is problematical: eg the destruction of the key view of the city from Sealand Road by construction of the former Northgate Travelodge (consented by the former City Council) and the Fountains Health Centre, with their long, high, straight or crude monopitch roofs; the obscuring of the supposedly protected views of the Shot Tower from the east as a result of outline planning permission given for the redevelopment of the Leadworks site; the Northgate Phae I development, built on a terrace that isolates it from St Martin’s Way; reduces the medieval Princess Street to a gully, and with box-like buildings with minimal visual interest and no local character.

Comment

Representation ID: 341

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

EP 1
I&O_372
Question EP 1 The policy approach completely fails to show how the key challenges facing the town will be met: 'Ellesmere Port town centre has been hollowed out by poor 1960s car-centric design … Poor walking and cycling links from the town centre to surrounding residential areas … Lack of visibility of Market Hall for pedestrians as a result of the car-dominated environment …' (LTP4 Evidence Base, page 84). We need to know how residential areas will be linked to a town centre that is worth visiting. To redress the hollowing-out there is a case for wholesale, joined-up, back-of-pavement redevelopment along Whitby Road and on surface car parks, to create a street of attractive buildings with some character that gives a ‘sense of arrival’. The road itself should have cycle lanes, grass and trees. Ellesmere Port is poorly connected by rail; the existing track layouts only permit through trains to Birkenhead/Liverpool and Helsby/Warrington. Ideally additional curves at Hooton and Helsby would permit through trains to Chester, and reopening the Helsby–Mouldsworth line would create a link to mid-Cheshire and indirectly to Crewe.

Comment

Representation ID: 342

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

NO 1
I&O_373
Question NO 1 The policy approach does not show how the key challenges facing the town will be met. See our answer to question VI 3. 'Poor crossings and heavy car traffic in key areas such as Chester Way isolates pedestrians … Surface car parking is extensive in the area, creating urban voids and inactive frontages … The dominance of cars along Venables Road severs the town from the northern part of Witton Street.' (LTP4 Evidence Base, page 86). See our response re the proposed move of Northwich market to Barons Quay for a discussion of design issues.

Comment

Representation ID: 343

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

WI 1
I&O_374
Question WI 1 According to the policy approach there is a focus on regeneration of the town centre and the old High Street. However, what we are actually seeing is the regeneration of the town centre as an identikit car-centred retail park without architectural merit or local character. As we recently pointed out in our response to the LTP4 Core Strategy, an alternative would have been to ‘create streets’ with back-of-pavement buildings in a distinct local style facing onto the A54, with car-parking above if desired, and to put that road ‘on a diet’, remove the central barrier to permit pedestrians to cross, and introduce cycle lanes and green islands with street trees. One may cite as parallels Barnard Castle in Co. Durham and Rothbury in Northumberland.

Comment

Representation ID: 344

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

TA 1
I&O_375
Question TA 1 We support the policy approach TA 1, but it should also be applied to existing settlements whenever possible, eg in areas of regeneration. We strongly support the aim of siting housing within approximately 800m of local facilities. It is potentially of immense importance in preventing endless housing sprawl, especially when combined with the concept of Key Settlement Gaps (24, LA 2).

Comment

Representation ID: 345

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

TA 2
I&O_376
Question TA 3 We strongly support the need for a Chester Western Relief Road. Its route needs to be determined and safeguarded before it is compromised. If CWaC wishes to increase the number of trips made by cycling, why are cycle lanes not included in policy approach TA 2?