Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 14986

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_15545
To accommodate the scale of new development required to meet the identified housing and employment needs in CWAC, it is likely that more than one of the identified Potential Growth Areas around Malpas will be required to be allocated within the emerging Local Plan. The adopted housing requirement for CWAC is 22,000 net additional dwellings over the plan period of 2010-203019. The spatial strategy apportions a requirement for at least 200 net additional dwellings over the plan period (2010-2030) to Malpas20. This represents 0.9% of the Borough housing requirement. The CWAC Annual Monitoring Report 202421 confirms that 375 dwellings were delivered in Malpas between 2010 and 2024, representing 187.5% of the identified housing requirement for the settlement. The Reg 18 Consultation Draft Plan sets out three Spatial Strategy Options, all of which propose housing growth within Malpas. As set out in our response to Question SS 11, ASL consider that Options A and C are not sustainable and therefore Option B is the most appropriate spatial strategy. Considering the scale of new development required to meet the identified housing needs in CWAC, it is likely that Malpas will need to accommodate growth and is a sustainable location for such growth. On this basis, site(s) within Malpas should be allocated within the emerging Local Plan to provide opportunities to accommodate the need for new residential development. ASL supports the identification of Potential Growth Area MAL03, which is identified as a location for housing uses in all three Spatial Strategy Options. MAL03 includes land at Mastiff Lane, which ASL are promoting. Therefore, ASL is fully supportive of this Potential Growth Area – it would represent a sustainable and logical extension of the settlement, benefiting from strong connectivity to the highway and public right of way networks, in close proximity to existing services. As set out in detail in ASL’s separate site-specific representations, land at Mastiff Lane is a highly sustainable location for growth, which would make a logical extension of the settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 14987

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_15546
ASL supports the recognition in Reg 18 Consultation Draft Plan Policy CH 1 in respect of “increasing opportunities for people to live in the heart of the city through the right mix of housing and creating high quality places” and “Chester’s strength as a compact, connected centre surrounded by accessible neighbourhoods”. Chester is a highly sustainable settlement which is attractive to its existing and prospective residents and should therefore accommodate a significant proportion of the identified housing needs for CWAC. Please refer to our response to Question SS 23 for further justification for housing growth in Chester.

Comment

Representation ID: 14988

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_15547
Land at Liverpool Road, Upton-by-Chester, which comprises a significant proportion of Potential Growth Area CH01, should be identified as an allocation within the emerging Local Plan to accommodate housing needs. Detailed site-specific representations, setting out the case for allocation, are submitted separately. Please refer to our response to Question SS 23 for further justification for housing growth in Chester.

Comment

Representation ID: 14989

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_15548
The new Local Plan must reflect the latest national policy context with respect to Green Belt, as set out in the revised NPPF (December 2024) and updated Green Belt PPG (February 2025). This includes the introduction of grey belt land and the role this has to play in delivering housing (and employment) growth. The policy should also have due regard to the emerging Green Belt review evidence (once completed). The Council should consult on its proposed methodology and approach for the Green Belt Assessment as soon as possible and prior to the work being undertaken. The countryside boundaries will need to be amended to reflect the spatial strategy, revised settlement boundaries and site allocations to meet housing (and employment) needs as identified in the emerging Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 14990

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_15549
Paragraph 35 of the NPPF makes clear that Local Plans should set out the contributions expected from development and that such policies should not undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan. To ensure it is deliverable, the emerging Local Plan should be supported by a Viability Appraisal which demonstrates that the infrastructure needed to support the amount of new development proposed is viable. It will also be important to ensure that any increase in viability pressures do not place too high a burden on developer contributions which may serve to undermine the deliverability of the emerging Local Plan policies and the associated Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) (once produced). Development can only be required to mitigate its own impact and cannot be required to address existing deficiencies in infrastructure or services. It is therefore essential for the IDP to clearly show the existing and known deficiencies in current infrastructure provision, before reaching any conclusion on the cumulative effects of new development, and any contribution that is needed from new development to mitigate any additional individual and/or cumulative impacts.

Comment

Representation ID: 14991

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_15550
No. All development should contribute to infrastructure provision required to enable its delivery, in a proportionate way (subject to viability). All infrastructure contributions must be compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the policy ‘tests’ for obligations set put under Regulation 122. Major development should be defined in accordance with the definition established in the NPPF (Glossary) to ensure consistency with other policy requirements: “For housing, development where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more. For non-residential development it means additional floorspace of 1,000m2 or more, or a site of 1 hectare or more, or as otherwise provided in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015”.

Comment

Representation ID: 14992

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_15551
The funding of infrastructure requirements should be determined on a case-by-case basis, informed by the Local Plan IDP (once prepared), reflecting the scale of development which would benefit from that investment. Where infrastructure is required to support multiple sites, possibly delivered in phases, with different developers/applicants, this should be shared by all parties. Similarly, infrastructure delivered by development may also have wider benefits associated with Council / others strategic priorities, which could benefit from funding streams available to the Council / others but not the developer / applicant.

Comment

Representation ID: 14993

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_15552
ASL is supportive of the approach to providing a range and choice of homes to meet the needs of the local area which is informed by up-to-date evidence, and agrees that the emerging Local Plan should encourage a mix of house types, sizes and tenures to be delivered, helping to ensure choice for homebuyers. However, any policy must be capable of being applied flexibly and should not be overly prescriptive, in order to prevent housing delivery from being compromised or stalled. Allowance should be made for changes in market demand over time and in local areas. Any housing mix policy should also allow regard to be had to the scale of the site, not being rigidly prescriptive in the mix provided if this is not the most suitable approach allowing for site constraints and having regard to the potential impact of housing mix on viability. The Council suggests that, if justified by evidence, a new policy will be brought in to require compliance with Nationally Described Space Standards (“NDSS”). UK Government has made clear that the NDSS are intended to be optional and should only be introduced where there is a clear need for them and they retain development viability. The evidence required to justify NDSS policies is set out within Planning Practice Guidance, which includes evidencing need, viability and timing. ASL will provide further comment once the necessary evidence is made available for consultation.

Comment

Representation ID: 14994

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_15553
No. As per response to Question HO 2, a percentage policy approach is considered to be overly restrictive, failing to allow for changes in market conditions which may occur in different parts of the Borough and / or over the lifetime of the Local Plan, and site specific considerations.

Comment

Representation ID: 14995

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_15554
The Council proposes to set out the percentage of affordable housing required across the Borough including potentially by sub-area, which will reflect the Government’s requirement for housing sites in the Green Belt to provide at least 50% affordable housing. The proposed policy also suggests that affordable housing will be required on all sites of 10 or more dwellings but in designated rural areas it will be three or more dwellings. ASL considers that it is appropriate for the Council to plan for the affordable needs of its community, and to ensure that it does this in line with the requirements of paragraph 35 and 64-66 of the NPPF. This should ensure that any affordable housing requirements are clearly set out, are evidenced as viable through a Viability Appraisal, and that flexibility is provided within the policy where viability may be an issue.