Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Support

Representation ID: 16421

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12366
The introduction of ‘grey belt’ in the updated NPPF in December 20244, and the updated green belt section of the PPG in February 2025, marks a fundamental change to Green Belt policy since the CWAC Local Plan Parts 1 and 2 were adopted. Therefore, it is UUK’s view that the circumstances have changed by a degree significant enough to justify the release of its Capenhurst Complex from the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 16422

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12367
For plan making, CWAC’s future Green Belt policy must consider paragraph 147 of the NPPF regarding whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to the Green Belt. If it is necessary to release Green Belt land, paragraph 148 of the NPPF sets out that plans should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations.

For decision taking, future Green Belt policy must be consistent with paragraph 155 of the NPPF, which would allow land to be classified as grey belt outside of the plan making process.

Support

Representation ID: 16423

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12368
As currently drafted, UUK does not consider any of these spatial strategies to be appropriate5. Further details are set out in the questions for these strategies in the joint response to topic questions SS 12; SS 14; SS 15; SS 16; SS 17; SS 18, and SS 19).

5 For the avoidance of doubt, this is option ‘d’ to Question SS 11 as set out above

Support

Representation ID: 16424

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12372
UUK does not consider that the Option A strategy (Retain the Green Belt)6 is appropriate, for the reasons set out in the response to topic question SS 9. As the principle of this strategy cannot be supported, no further changes are proposed. As such, Option A strategy should be discounted from further consideration in preparation of this CWAC Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 16425

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12373
UUK does not consider that the Option A strategy (Retain the Green Belt)6 is appropriate, for the reasons set out in the response to topic question SS 9. As the principle of this strategy cannot be supported, no further changes are proposed. As such, Option A strategy should be discounted from further consideration in preparation of this CWAC Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 16426

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12374
UUK’s responses to the above topic questions are interlinked, so these have been answered in single response below.
The Complex is in a sustainable location, being adjacent to Ellesmere Port and located adjacent to an existing train station (Capenhurst). Therefore, a local plan strategy that combines Option B and Option C would more closely align with UUK’s development ambitions.
If the Council was to remove the Complex from the Green Belt, the agreed option must ensure the Complex is not referenced as a commercial site in the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 16427

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12375
UUK’s responses to the above topic questions are interlinked, so these have been answered in single response below.
The Complex is in a sustainable location, being adjacent to Ellesmere Port and located adjacent to an existing train station (Capenhurst). Therefore, a local plan strategy that combines Option B and Option C would more closely align with UUK’s development ambitions.
If the Council was to remove the Complex from the Green Belt, the agreed option must ensure the Complex is not referenced as a commercial site in the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 16428

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12376
UUK’s responses to the above topic questions are interlinked, so these have been answered in single response below.
The Complex is in a sustainable location, being adjacent to Ellesmere Port and located adjacent to an existing train station (Capenhurst). Therefore, a local plan strategy that combines Option B and Option C would more closely align with UUK’s development ambitions.
If the Council was to remove the Complex from the Green Belt, the agreed option must ensure the Complex is not referenced as a commercial site in the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 16429

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12377
UUK’s responses to the above topic questions are interlinked, so these have been answered in single response below.
The Complex is in a sustainable location, being adjacent to Ellesmere Port and located adjacent to an existing train station (Capenhurst). Therefore, a local plan strategy that combines Option B and Option C would more closely align with UUK’s development ambitions.
If the Council was to remove the Complex from the Green Belt, the agreed option must ensure the Complex is not referenced as a commercial site in the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 16430

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12378
UUK’s responses to the above topic questions are interlinked, so these have been answered in single response below.
The Complex is in a sustainable location, being adjacent to Ellesmere Port and located adjacent to an existing train station (Capenhurst). Therefore, a local plan strategy that combines Option B and Option C would more closely align with UUK’s development ambitions.
If the Council was to remove the Complex from the Green Belt, the agreed option must ensure the Complex is not referenced as a commercial site in the Green Belt.