Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 346

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

TC 1
I&O_377
Question TC 1 The policy approach states: ‘Development should be of an appropriate scale that reflects the size and role of each centre and should not have an unacceptable impact on other centres’. There is an inconsistency here in that out-of-town retail centres, especially Cheshire Oaks, are already recognised as having a harmful effect on a number of towns in the borough. Why are they permitted? It is not only the size of edge-of-town or out-of-town developments that should be considered but their function. Sports grounds and builders’ merchants/DIY stores, for example, are unlikely to be suitable for town-centre locations given their necessary size and, in the second case, the reasonable need to vehicle access. However, it would currently be bizarre for other retailers to assert the need to be sited outside the centres of Chester and Northwich when the former Marks & Spencer premises on the north side of Foregate Street and the former Co-op on the south side of that street have been subdivided and the former British Home Stores on the north side of Foregate Street remains vacant. In Northwich we understand that subdivision of some Barons Quay units is now contemplated. Encouragement of city-centre living should not lead to the loss of retail, which may then relocate to peripheral sites, encouraging car use; see our answer to question CH 1.

Comment

Representation ID: 347

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

LA 1
I&O_378
We support this policy approach, subject to our answer to Question LA 2.

Comment

Representation ID: 348

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

LA 1
I&O_379
Key settlement gaps should be the default around all new or expanded settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 349

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

HE 1
I&O_380
Question HI 1 To the evidence base should be added the 2007 Historic Landscape Characterisation Final Report and the 2022 Cheshire Aerial Investigation and Mapping Project. The Chester Archaeological Plan has resulted in successful outcomes in terms of preservation in situ or excavation as appropriate. It should be noted that it is more than an ‘evidence base’ document, providing information; it also sets out a clear framework of expectations and procedures. Given the large extensions to some towns that are envisaged in the emerging local plan, it should be considered whether the Cheshire Historic Towns Surveys should be supplemented by more detailed desk-based assessments that tease out the heritage (whether buried archaeology or standing buildings) that would need to be protected in any development or might indeed enhance it. The Archaeology Planning Advisory Service would need to be resourced appropriately. The Chester Characterisation Study has been markedly less successful than the Chester Archaeological Plan in securing good outcomes in terms of the quality of redevelopment, which rarely rises above doing slight harm to conservation areas because of the lack of clear expectations. These expectations should be set out in the forthcoming design code, for which the Chester Characterisation Study should serve as an evidence base, along with comparable studies for other settlements in the borough. We consider that the objectives of the forthcoming Heritage Strategy: ‘Supporting local identity, connections, and placemaking’ and ‘Using heritage resources to help tackle climate change’ should feature explicitly in the policy approach and would support the (re-) creation of more beautiful, distinctive and walkable places with a clear identity, the restoration of hedgerows, woodland etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 350

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

DS 1
I&O_381
Question DS 1 We support the suggested policy approach. Design codes will be absolutely vital if any success is to be secured in this field. They will need to be wide-ranging, from the layout of settlements, through building design, to details like shopfronts (see Question Misc 9); they will need to be place- or neighbourhood specific; and they will need to be visual and precise to avoid ambiguities that can be exploited. We have commented on the subject here and here. The attractiveness of historical places like Chester lies not just in the stories that they have accreted over the centuries but in their human scale, walkability and the quality of their buildings, contrasting with the bland, car-centred areas that now dominate the other towns of the borough. This attractiveness should not be regarded as a feature confined to the past: it can and should inform future developments, be they regenerations of existing areas, urban extensions or wholly new communities. Design codes should therefore draw, for example, on the evidence of the Cheshire Historic Towns Surveys to inform general layout and the Chester Characterisation Study and any equivalents for other places in the borough for the design of individual buildings. They will also need to cover all types of buildings, not just houses and apartments.

Comment

Representation ID: 351

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

DS 1
I&O_382
Whether or not the design code is included in the Local Plan, it is crucial that all developers, including CWaC, are obliged to follow it.

Comment

Representation ID: 352

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

EN 1
I&O_383
Question EN 1 We generally support policy approach EN1 but question why biomass is being considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 353

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

EN 2
I&O_384
Question EN 3 We drew attention to the threat posed to the historic environment and to visual amenity posed by wind turbines in our response to the CWaC Climate Emergency Response Plan, paras 4.–4.3

Comment

Representation ID: 354

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

EN 3
I&O_385
Question EN 4 We drew attention to the threat posed to the historic environment and to visual amenity posed by ground-based solar ‘farms’ in our response to the CWaC Climate Emergency Response Plan, paras 4.–4.3. CWaC should adopt a ‘rooftop first’ approach to solar panels. Advice on fitting solar panels to Listed buildings is available from Historic England.

Comment

Representation ID: 355

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

MISC 9
I&O_386
Question MISC 9 However this policy matter is covered, the standards of shopfronts and especially signage need to be improved so as to be compatible with the buildings.