Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 10796

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

I&O_11294
Hayfield Homes support the policy approach towards the Green Belt and Countryside as set out in GB 1. Policies provided in the emerging Local Plan should reflect the most recent guidance relating to the Green Belt in the NPPF, including reference to Grey Belt land and provide reference to the anticipated Green Belt review evidence. In regard to wording of the policy the Local Plan should include reference to Paragraph 148 of the NPPF, which notes: Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans  should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt,  which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations.  However, when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to  promote sustainable patterns of development should determine whether a  site’s location is appropriate with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and  115 of this Framework. Strategic policy-making authorities should consider  the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development  towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and  villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer  Green Belt boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 10798

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

I&O_11296
Yes, the Local Plan should include separate policies for countryside and Green Belt areas, as they serve distinct planning functions and are subject to different national policy frameworks and local considerations. Maintaining two distinct policies will also improve clarity for applicants, decision-makers, and communities, especially as the new Local Plan will be a single document.

Comment

Representation ID: 10799

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

I&O_11297
Hayfield Homes support the view that new development will be encouraged in sustainable locations with access to services and facilities. Land off Church Street represents a sustainable location which is well connected by active travel and public transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 10800

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

I&O_11298
In circumstances where developer contributions are sought, the obligation needs to allow for the consideration of viability. In line with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended), planning obligations must be: • Necessary to make the application acceptable in planning terms; • Directly related to the development; and • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Comment

Representation ID: 10803

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

I&O_11301
Hayfield Homes broadly supports the suggested policy approach towards housing mix and type of housing as set out within HO 1 yet believe this could be strengthened to allow for greater flexibility on a site-by-site basis, particularly in strategic or edge-of-settlement locations that could accommodate a broader range of uses. In this context, Land off Church Street represents a credible opportunity for sustainable residential development, including specialist or supported housing. The site is located on the edge of the existing settlement boundary and is adjacent to established employment uses. Its proximity to Northwich and local services, transport connections, and retail facilities enhances its suitability for a broader housing mix, particularly for older people or those needing access to services without reliance on the car. We recommend that Policy HO 1 be amended to explicitly acknowledge that specialist and mixed-tenure housing opportunities may also be appropriately located on sustainable edge-of-settlement sites. This would help ensure the policy remains responsive to local context and land availability and supports inclusive, place-based growth. Such flexibility would align with the NPPF’s objectives around meeting diverse housing needs, making effective use of land, and planning positively for mixed-use developments that create healthy, inclusive, and vibrant communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 10805

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

I&O_11303
While the overall intention of Policy HO2 to secure the delivery of affordable housing is supported, the policy approach should be more flexible, particularly in relation to edge-of-settlement or Green Belt release sites that are being promoted for development in the Local Plan. It should be recognised by CWaC in the development of the Local Plan that the delivery of housing on undeveloped land can incur unexpected costs, including Green Belt mitigation measures.  Policy HO2 should therefore allow for site specific viability considerations to come forward as part of any application submission.

Comment

Representation ID: 10806

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

I&O_11304
Hayfield Homes is supportive of the approach however, note that where reference is given to development within the Green Belt, this should be supported by text outlining the principles of the Grey Belt to aid sustainable development across the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 10807

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

I&O_11305
The emerging Local Plan should ensure that it sets out a clear criteria on what constitutes as appropriate Green Belt development in line with the 2024 version of the NPPF. Clearer definitions would provide greater clarity for applicants and decision makers. It is also important that the Plan recognise that in order to achieve sustainable development in well-connected locations, Green Belt release will be appropriate This would support wider regeneration and growth objectives and align with emerging evidence around employment and housing land needs. Therefore, while detailed Green Belt guidance is welcomed, this should be balanced with a criteria-based policy that also facilitates strategic and sustainable Green Belt release where exceptional circumstances are demonstrable.

Comment

Representation ID: 10809

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

I&O_11307
The Local Plan should not seek to exceed the 10% mandatory biodiversity net gain requirement set out nationally. The 10% threshold, as introduced by the Environment Act 2021 represents a balanced and evidence-based standard that has been subject to national consultation, viability testing, and wide stakeholder engagement. Requiring a higher percentage locally could risk undermining development viability, and introduce delivery challenges

Comment

Representation ID: 10810

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

I&O_11308
A borough-wide Design Code should not form part of the new Local Plan. While high-quality design is critical to sustainable development, a single, overarching Design Code applied across the entire borough risks being too generic or inflexible, to the wide variation in local character across Cheshire West and Chester. Instead, the Local Plan should reference the role of design codes as supplementary guidance, allowing them to evolve over time without requiring formal plan review.