Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Search representations
Results for Kelsall Parish Council search
New searchComment
Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Question SS 18
Representation ID: 4185
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council
I&O_4414
This is hte best of the 3 options. It would bring a more balanced development across the borough
Comment
Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Question SS 19
Representation ID: 4188
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council
I&O_4417
some improvements possible: Frodsham and Neston are not the same, given the Frodsham’s better road network Settlements near urban centres such as Mickle Trafford, Christleton & Waverton should be considered too (in the same way as the other service centres). With improvements in bus service and bus lanes to access urban centre these would be more sustainable locations than Tattenhall or Malpas Notable that Kelsall is one KSC without a bus corridor Some rural station settlements would need some road improvements at a key junction, such as Delamere and Acton Bridge. Acton Bridge is not a suitable location for up to 500 homes. It may have a station but is has nothing else.
Comment
Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Question SS 22
Representation ID: 4192
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council
I&O_4421
Need for facilities: sites must be allocated for facilities that will be required to cater for the expected amount of housing development. The Council has identified employment land but not other essential services such as local retail, leisure, education sites. With the LARGE housing numbers involved it is easy to predict extra need for those. Sites for facilities should be allocated upfront even if they will not be built out until housing development is under way Retention of employment premises, retail/office etc particularly in rural settlements is essential to prevent loss of local facilities. Loss & lack of local retail results in more car use to access these elsewhere.
Comment
Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Question SS 25
Representation ID: 4193
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council
I&O_4422
The southern end of CH02 area would require some improvements to the junction over the A55 / A 41, which is always congested. This may not need physical changes to the road. The junction is often blocked by traffic, monitoring by cameras & fines to obstructing drivers could be effective (similar to what is done on bus lanes in Chester)
Comment
Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Question SS 29
Representation ID: 4196
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council
I&O_4425
On the Spactial Strategy maps, Northwich is shown as the area with most housing growth. However road connections to the west of the town are awful. Driving through Hartford North to south or East to West is extremely slow. There has been no improvement in the road network to keep pace with previous housebuilding. Difficult to see how areas NOR07 to NOR12 can be developed without improvements to infrastructure. Add some mixed use, retail or employment land to the west of the town! Northwich includes Weaverham. It would make more sense to have a station in the NOR10 area than in Acton Bridge!
Comment
Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Question SS 33
Representation ID: 4198
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council
I&O_4427
Winsford is divided in two by the river, and it ,makes sense to have some mixed use development to the west. Keep Area 06 even if Spatial strategy C is chosen.
Comment
Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Question SS 35
Representation ID: 4199
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council
I&O_4428
Cuddington & Sandiway CUD 04 is better than CUD 05 or CUD02, as it is close to both the station and the main roads.
Comment
Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Question SS 41
Representation ID: 4201
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council
I&O_4430
FROD02 is worse, too far from the main road . Why no mixed use/ employment land included? .
Comment
Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Question SS 45
Representation ID: 4202
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council
I&O_4431
Why no mixed use/ employment land included?
Comment
Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)
Question SS 47
Representation ID: 4204
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council
I&O_4433
A mixture of both areas would work better, taking the half of each closest to Chester Road Why no mixed use/ employment land included? Tarvin is a smaller settlement and has been allocated some. Also Kelsall is the only KSC with poor bus connection (tellingly not included in transport corridor) and no post office as of Sept 25