Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 748

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_852
Neighbourhood Plans should help to determine the type and extent of development within the local area. For example, housing to support local needs and improving sustainability of a settlement. There are many small villages throughout Cheshire West that are surrounded by Green Belt which makes expansion challenging. Rather than the Governments latest ‘grey belt model’ which has the potential to, in some cases, over develop some areas in a blanket approach, it would be more sustainable in rural communities specifically, to limit expansion to small pockets of development throughout the plan period. For example, in local service centres, limiting housing development to a maximum of 20 houses in a development to ensure rural communities are not overwhelmed in terms of additional traffic and increased use of local services and facilities. With a requirement for landscape buffers between developments, this would ensure that the rural character of these villages would be retained and growth of the population in the areas would be at a more sustainable rate. More development than is currently permitted within Local service Centres is certainly required, to ensure there are sufficient numbers of young people able to stay within their local area and to provide for more young people to move to these areas, or older members of the community to downsize, enabling local services and facilities to remain financially viable. Land should also be available for new development for small businesses on the outskirts of local service centres, which would help to provide employment and improve the rural economy. The local community are best placed to determine the best locations for new development within their local area.

Comment

Representation ID: 749

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_853
The Green Belt policy should be expanded to include additional appropriate uses, particularly small-scale businesses that serve rural communities and economies. Current Green Belt designations frequently exclude viable small business uses that could operate successfully on the periphery of rural settlements. These include small-scale tourist accommodation, landscape and agricultural service businesses, modest office facilities for local rental, and storage operations. Such uses often struggle to find suitable existing buildings for conversion, yet they provide essential services to rural areas and support local employment. Small business development can complement rural settlements without compromising Green Belt objectives when properly managed. These operations typically generate low traffic volumes and can integrate well with rural landscapes through appropriate design and landscaping measures. Protection of rural character must remain paramount, with any permitted development required to demonstrate small scale and compatibility with existing local infrastructure capacity. Proposals should undergo careful assessment to ensure they do not create inappropriate urbanisation, or place excessive demands on rural road networks and utilities. Mandatory landscape buffering could be implemented, where appropriate, to screen development and maintain the visual openness that defines Green Belt character. This approach would enable rural economic diversification while preserving the fundamental purposes of Green Belt designation. Expanding appropriate use categories would provide greater flexibility for sustainable rural enterprise while maintaining robust controls to prevent inappropriate development that could undermine Green Belt integrity.

Comment

Representation ID: 750

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_854
A separate policy framework for countryside and Green Belt areas should be maintained despite the introduction of grey belt designations, as these areas warrant distinct policy approaches reflecting their different levels of protection. Green Belt continues to receive heightened protection from development under national policy, with more stringent restrictions on what constitutes appropriate development. These constraints are fundamental to Green Belt's strategic purpose in preventing urban sprawl and maintaining settlement separation. Applying identical policy approaches to both Green Belt and general countryside areas would inappropriately extend these restrictive controls to areas not designated for such protection. The countryside outside Green Belt boundaries serves different planning functions and can accommodate forms of development that would be inappropriate within Green Belt. Rural areas not subject to Green Belt designation should retain greater flexibility for appropriate development that supports rural communities and economies without compromising the strategic purposes that Green Belt policy is designed to achieve. Rural areas have varying sensitivities and development pressures that cannot be effectively managed through a single policy framework. The grey belt designation adds another layer to this hierarchy but does not eliminate the need for distinct countryside and Green Belt policies that reflect their fundamental differences in planning status and protection levels.

Comment

Representation ID: 751

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_855
Additional uses appropriate in the countryside should be incorporated into policy to support rural vitality and economic sustainability. Tourist accommodation scaled appropriately for its location should be recognized as suitable countryside development. Such facilities must consider access arrangements, proximity to existing housing, and potential impacts on neighbouring businesses regarding noise or disturbance. Rural tourism provides significant opportunities for countryside enjoyment while supporting local business trade and economic activity. Small-scale business uses should be deemed appropriate as they create rural employment opportunities, strengthen local economies, and reduce commuting distances for residents. Examples include storage facilities for landscaping and amenity sector equipment, small rental office spaces for emerging businesses or individuals, and modest storage operations serving local needs. The shift toward home working has created demand for flexible workspace that rural areas currently cannot meet. Many residents face isolation working from home, while start-up businesses struggle to find affordable premises. Small storage facilities also address practical needs, providing space for vehicle storage, household items, or goods for online retail that many rural properties cannot accommodate. New countryside buildings for small business use should be limited to specific parameters, such as 1,000 square meters maximum floor area, single-storey construction, and design sympathetic to rural character. Landscaping conditions should ensure adequate screening and prevent sites appearing urbanised, maintaining countryside visual amenity while enabling appropriate economic development that supports rural communities without compromising landscape quality.

Comment

Representation ID: 752

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_856
Yes, if other suitable uses, (examples as listed in GB 3) are deemed appropriate. At present the ‘appropriate use’ is too restrictive. Nonetheless, some restrictions should be retained to limit the type and scale of development to that which would be suitable within a rural area. No restrictions could lead to an overwhelming drain on existing infrastructure; noise and nuisance to local communities and disruption of existing businesses, including the agricultural sector.

Comment

Representation ID: 753

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_857
For local service centres, the rural character can be protected by ensuring only small scale developments are permitted. This could include restricting housing developments to a maximum of e.g 20 units on a site, or restricting the scale of any business premises to e.g 1000 sq m with a height restriction of 5m. Landscape buffers should be a condition of any development. Schemes should be designed to be sympathetic to the rural character of an area in terms of layout, scale, materials and landscaping. For key service centres, development should be restricted to a percentage of growth based on the existing number of houses. For example, from census data there are approximately 1,500 households in Kelsall, a key service centre that has a coop, chemist, medical centre, primary school and bus links. If the plan period is 15 years and development were restricted to an increase in households of, for example, 15% over the plan period, that would equate to an additional 225 houses. That could be further restricted with development having to be phased, with for example no more than 50 houses being constructed within 1 year. Some of the key service centres are considerably larger than others and have more extensive infrastructure, better able to cope with more rapid expansion. For Example, Frodsham has (according to census data) 4,274 households, a train station, medical centre, large array of shops and Helsby, which has a train station, shops and a senior school, has 2,652 households. If something like a 15% increase were implemented then Frodsham would have an additional 641 additional homes and Helsby would have 398. These figures would seem far more sustainable than the current Government figures imposed on CWAC. It is understood that the Government wishes to drastically increase housing numbers and that the majority of housing should be built around the main urban areas. Nonetheless, with the introduction of Grey Belt and new housing targets set by the Government, developers are understandably keen to build around the attractive and lucrative rural areas. However, if more rural communities are inundated with high levels of development without restriction, the local infrastructure will be overwhelmed and the rural character of communities will be lost. Expansion of rural towns and villages is inevitable and required, but it should be carried out slowly and sustainably over a period of time, to allow the infrastructure, local services and facilities to be upgraded over time to safely accommodate the growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 754

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_858
In terms of the wording of the policy of VE 1, for Caravan and Camping sites, it states that they should utilise or be well related to existing buildings. This therefore suggests that a new site, with no existing buildings will not be permitted. I do not agree with this. In suitable locations, small scale caravan and camping sites should be able to be accommodated within rural areas, subject to criteria, including the cumulative effect of other surrounding development.

Comment

Representation ID: 755

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_859
The policy states “Elsewhere in the borough, proposals for visitor attractions or visitor accommodation will be supported in line with other relevant policies of the plan and with regard to NPPF paragraph 88.” STRAT 9 Green Belt and countryside does not allow for new tourist accommodation outside of settlement boundaries, despite the NPPF para 88 stating  Planning policies and decisions should enable: a) the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed, new buildings c) sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside; STRAT 9 should be altered to include tourist accommodation in line with the NPPF and VE1.

Comment

Representation ID: 756

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_860
The policy doesn’t state a scale of development to which this policy would relate. For example, if a scheme for 5 houses were brought forward, it would be difficult and potentially financially unfeasible to provide a mixture of type and tenure of homes within such a small site. In addition, this doesn’t allow for a small site to be entirely 2/3 bed bungalows for example, which is maybe what is required in a specific area.

Comment

Representation ID: 757

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_861
Yes, subject to evidence of the Housing Needs Assessment, but it should also be restricted to schemes over a certain size, for example if 10 or more homes are to be built.