Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 4249

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4478
yes, Include sites of less than 100 for open Space developer contributions.  Apply a proportional levy based on size of development against requirement for the area. Particularly If the area has a deficit of public open space this MUST be done.

Comment

Representation ID: 4250

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4479
THe contributions must be applied, but the implementation can be more flexible, to achieve a better result.  On-site should be required wherever possible. Within an area, a range of different open space typologies could be spread across a number of developments e.g. play space on one, allotments on another, community public open space in a third. This would allow for creation of an area of a sensible size, not small scattered parcels. This would require taking into account the projected housing target - in addition to any deficit in open space already noted-  is catered for.   For a given site, say 100 houses,  add the area requried all green space contributions and use them for one type, so a useable area can be provided, and the typologies not provided on this site can be added to the requirements for other applications.  Given that many settlements are going to see increases of 500 or more dwellings, this would not endanger the creation of all the typologies of open space  This is not optional in the rural area, since the ‘open spaces’ in the countryside are not accessibile per se - being farmed and privately owned. Access is limited to footpaths, allowing only for walking.

Comment

Representation ID: 4251

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4480
in addition to considering flood risk on the development site there should also be an assessment of the impact such development may have on the flood risk to adjacent sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 4252

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4481
yes, better a natural solution than an engineered one. This would meet the goals of several other policies. For example, a recent development in Kelsall, Green Hill road, has no permeable surfaces, water capture or infiltration features. As a result, the large central green space cannot be planted to provide shade or wildlife benefit, since it covers the large SUDS attenuation tank  required for the site. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4253

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4482
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4254

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4483
Proper study of capacity and issues by utilities to inform planning decisions and developers contributions if required to upgrade infrastructure. – require water companies to upgrade existing facilities, treatment plants etc and to future proof for additional capacity More infiltration and capture – encourage developments featuring grey water systems and use of captured rain water in the property itself – this would both reduce the need for new clean water infrastructure, and run-off.  

Comment

Representation ID: 4255

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4484
yes, it is essential that identified key gaps between settlements in the local plan and in neighbourhood plans be maintained in order to retain local identity and distinctiveness of settlements. For point 4 (site and landscape characteristics)  Policy should require that application document relate the proposal to the landscape, showing design in context. Where topography and views matter, proposal must include a physical illustration of heights in situ, for ex using an inexpensive but realistic tool like Bauprofile.

Comment

Representation ID: 4256

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4485
the suggested approach should be retained with the current ASCVs protected and enhanced.  Additional areas may be added if considered necessary. such as the Sandstone Ridge if the AONB isn’t going forward

Comment

Representation ID: 4257

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4486
the suggested approach should be retained with the current ASCVs protected and enhanced.  Additional areas may be added if considered necessary. Like the Sandstone Ridge if the AONB isn’t going forward

Comment

Representation ID: 4258

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4487
yes. In particular would support the addition of details on acceptable tree species (native and potentially large rather than small, non-native ) Hedgerows on external edges of new developments, particularly in rural areas is an excellent addition although thought must be given to who should maintain them in order for them to be of maximum benefit to wildlife. The landscaping must include  enough space for any new hedges to grow to a hedgerow size