Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 4139

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4368
Neighbourhood Plans should include specific requirements & policies including local housing needs, management of green space, specific policies on environment and landscape protection, and settlement boundaries. Where the area has been identified in the LP Growth Areas, the NP should be able to specify which area. is more suitable for the community's needs. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4140

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4369
The Vision principles are fine, as long as they are supported by robust detailed policies. For ex. Protecting character of the Cheshire countryside, will be compromised by rush to development, as the rural sites are the easiest and most profitable to develop. Vision should include provision of appropriate infrastructure to make the borough a good place to live.  

Comment

Representation ID: 4143

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4372
Include Frodsham in the list of larger settlements needing an individual vision. To be consistent, the spatial strategy needs some growth around Frodsham & Helsby Vision includes protecting the special character of Cheshire Countryside and villages; need to even out impact of high targets by letting settlements in Green Belt grow to some extent, avoiding the other rural settlements taking a disproportionate amount of new housing

Comment

Representation ID: 4145

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4374
Option A - with the addition of an environmental objective covering wildlife and habitats

Comment

Representation ID: 4147

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4376
Yes. Objectives S04 (transport), SO5 (infrastructure and services), SO7 (Education)  SO8 (other facilities) and SO12 (character and design), and SO14 (climate mitigation)  given the challenging situation for housebuilding and the amount of development coming forward outside the Plan, these objectives are key to ensure the current wave of development does not have an unsustainable impact on communities

Comment

Representation ID: 4148

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4377
SO1, role of Chester as a sub-regional city; Letting the city grow would require building up on previously developed sites, and removing more land from Green Belt. This is not popular but what is the alternative?  Letting Northwhich overtake Chester as the ‘county town’ and Winsford? And Chester becomes a minor attraction of mostly cafes and restaurants and tourist sites. Also agree with SO1 phrasing ‘enough development to support sustainable rural communities’. Some settlements in Green Belt would like to grow but are constrained. Instead there is a marked imbalance with some villages growing by 50% in the coming plan period, while those settlements in Green Belt stay backwards and cannot sustain any local shops or facilities.   Therefore S03 also good. SO9 still essential SO10; how about consulting local communities, PCs and NP groups, on what constitutes the ‘special character of the Cheshire Countryside’

Comment

Representation ID: 4150

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4379
No, This is not the right approach. They include many valuable objectives, but not appropriate for a planning document, they don’t align very well with actual  planning policies – eg 4. Sustainable Waste management 5. Reduce consumption of natural resources The list is too woolly Also Seems to miss any objectives dealing with climate change adaptation in built environment Doesn’t place enough emphasis on preserving and developing facilities, particularly in rural area, obj 21. Eg provision of leisure and retail and education in all communities  

Comment

Representation ID: 4151

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4380
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4153

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4382
Green and blue infrastructure should  also be used to mitigate flooding, eg by increasing infiltration rate (in practical terms this means that any proposed developments next to a water course of any size should leave ample space to maintain the width of the stream bed and allow for seasonal flooding) For improving transport options, the location of the development and its relations to other areas are relevant 3 rd bullet in existing STRAT1: "Locate new housing, with good accessibility to existing or proposed local shops, community facilities and primary schools and with good connections to public transport" However housing will be located where applications are made, so the Local Authority must seek to allocate space for facilities, and support better transport connections. And support neighbourhood plan groups trying to do the same thing, Otherwise, there will be no sustainable development because all facilities created later will be in poor locations Must keep STRAT1 point: Minimise the loss of greenfield land and high grade agricultural land Clarify in policy detail that feasibility will not be allowed as a reason to avoid meeting those policies, since applicants should have knowledge of the relevant policies for any site (and the higher property prices in the borough are evidence that developers can afford to meet the requirements without impacting their profitability (if evidence is needed, look no further than  government figures used to calculate the standard formula for housing targets and increase the target for CWAC due to high prices! ) If developers wriggle out of the requirements of this policy, it will only impose costs on households, councils and government to adapt the housing stock later.

Comment

Representation ID: 4156

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4385
Yes, agree with emphasis on previously developed land and the point made about choices for these sites. They must be made more attractive to developers by allowing for different design, increased height or density, in order to allow for the site to be profitable  and competitive with green field land For urban extensions, must consider location of employment land and space for facilities. Chester and Northwhich have quite lopsided provision, wehre most retail and a lot of industrial sites are on one side of town (West of Chester, East of Northwich). This is on the opposite side from most rural settlements, meaning that all rural residents driving into town for services in addition have to cross the town and generates more car trips than necessary.  Also , re emphasis on developing brownfield first, conditions attached to such land must be realistic, to make it more attractive to developers. The obligations re BNG, social housing, height could be relaxed. This is necessary to even the playing field compared with green fields which have minimal costs to developers but maximum impact.