Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 4218

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4447
Mention removing settlement boundaries; disagree strongly. Settlement boundary is a very clear and effective policy for limiting development. They should be redrawn to allow for the required growth in housing – otherwise green fields around Cheshire villages will be developed further than required (easy to do, and profitable to sell), resulting in harm to the countryside and unsustainable development! Numbers of dwellings “allocated” to a settlement are indicative when most housing is market led, and does not provide an easily enforceable  limit to planning applications

Comment

Representation ID: 4219

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4448
Policy limiting density, and proper wording of policies on design and landscape and environment, and robust application of those policies. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4222

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4451
Yes, agree with the intent of the policy. we believe this should be made even stronger.  Local Plan Strat 8 Policy and the NPPF clearly state that development should not exceed the capacity of existing services and infrastructure unless the required improvements can be made, and STRAT11 that the Council will “facilitate the timely provision of additional facilities, services and infrastructure to meet identified needs, whether arising from new developments or existing community need, in locations that are appropriate and accessible”. The provision of sites for schools to expand, and the capacity of infrastructure such as highways, water and sewage must be considered upfront if the increased pace of housing development is to be sustainable. Developers contributions are necessary to the implementation, but will not achieve the necessary capacity unless space to do so is safeguarded (eg best school sites for expansion, space for surface water drainage, watercourses being able to manage flooding)   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 –( see government figures used to calculate the standard formula for housing targets - and to justify the increase in numbers) 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. This is particularly imperative in rural areas, where property prices are higher, but the costs of providing infrastructure relative to population are also higher - the viablity of green fields rural sites will not be imperilled by contributions towards infrastructure!    Strongly support Amendments to the policy will make it clear that provision for education for all years[…]  will be required. (15.2)     The suggested approach is to amend the Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT 11 to ensure educational needs, including contributions to school transport provision will be required.   Current LP policy regarding infrastructure and facilities is not strong enough, stating that ‘proposals will be supported’ but not planning for provision of new facilities except for the largest development (kingsmead, Chester Kings Moat) Most of the existing policy deals with protecting existing facilities, not securing sustainable improvements needed for development expected or under application

Comment

Representation ID: 4226

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4455
Agree with The policy approach, but it should apply across the board. Or it is too easy for developers to 'game' the system by applying for 99 dwellings where the threshold is 100. what is the threshold for ' major development'?  The need for infrastructure should be considered across the number of developments-which can be easily be predicted to happen in a short/medium space of time due to increased housebuilding targets.  Rather than apply only to major developments, then the requirement for area (e.g. 500 for Kelsall) can apply proportionately to all size of developments. Where the amenity cannot be provided on site, then contribution to secure space on other site in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 4228

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4457
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4229

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4458
Yes 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

Representation ID: 4231

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4460
no

Comment

Representation ID: 4233

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4462
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4234

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4463
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4235

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4464
yes