Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 14045

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Cogshall Lane)

I&O_14582
Policy STRAT9 in adopted Local Plan combines (and in fact conflates) Green Belt and countryside policy. This confuses the appropriate policy tests for two different policy areas. Policy STRAT9 creates a planning paradox whereby if a small village was located within the Green Belt (and washed over because it has no settlement boundary), development would be acceptable in principle because it could amount to limited infilling in a village and/or redevelopment of previously developed land. This approach is consistent with the approach in paragraph 150, 154e and 154g of the Framework. The Framework does not say that settlements in the Green Belt must have a settlement boundary – this a different approach from the previous guidance in PPG2. However, STRAT9 does not permit development in small villages in the open countryside which do not have settlement boundaries (but which would be washed over if in the Green Belt). Instead, it treats them as countryside. This approach is far too simplistic. There are many small villages in CWaC which are clearly not countryside and where development should be permissible as infill or appropriate scale development. Consequently, STRAT9 is more restrictive towards development in the countryside and rural communities than development in the Green Belt. Development in the Green Belt is also capable of compliance with the development plan through the demonstration of very special circumstances – a policy test not allowed for in the countryside. The new local plan should treat countryside and Green Belt separately and should allow for appropriate development in or on the edge of villages outside the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 14046

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Cogshall Lane)

I&O_14583
Carden support the principle of delivering a mixture of housing types, tenures and specialist housing to meet the diverse needs of the community. However, we consider that applying a rigid percentage-based requirement across all sites is overly prescriptive and could give rise to significant viability challenge Instead, we believe a more flexible, evidence-led approach is consistent with both local needs and national policy. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, paragraph 61) requires local authorities to “it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.” Importantly, the NPPF does not prescribe fixed percentages but requires responsiveness to locally specific circumstances. Local demographic evidence within the Council’s Places background paper (published 2024) illustrates why a one-size-fits-all percentage approach is inappropriate. For example, over 20% of the population of Malpas is aged over 70, compared to only 13% in Ellesmere Port. This demonstrates significant variation in housing need across the district. A flexible policy approach will ensure that housing delivery is locally responsive, aligns with the latest evidence, and produces housing that is genuinely in demand. This flexibility also helps to support deliverability. Overly prescriptive policies risk constraining development, creating mismatches between local demand and supply, and undermining viability. The NPPF (paragraph 35) requires plans to ensure that policies relating to affordable housing do ‘not undermine the deliverability of the plan’. A non-prescriptive approach, guided by up-to-date housing needs evidence, ensures that new housing contributes positively to local markets without jeopardising site viability. In summary, while we fully support the objective of securing a wide choice of high-quality homes and specialist housing, this should be achieved through a flexible, evidence-based policy framework rather than rigid percentage requirements. This approach is more consistent with the NPPF and will better reflect the varying needs of communities across the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 14047

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Cogshall Lane)

I&O_14584
We support the principle of enhancing tree cover and green infrastructure, but the proposed blanket requirement to achieve 16% tree cover in every ward is neither justified nor consistent with national policy. The Issues and Options paper states that the 16% target comes from the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS), but this strategy is still only in draft form. Relying on an emerging document that has not yet been finalised or tested is unsound. Furthermore, the LNRS does not explain how this figure was calculated or why it should apply uniformly across all wards, regardless of their differing circumstances. The NPPF does encourage tree planting, but in a balanced and site-specific way. Paragraph 136 states that applicants and local planning authorities should work with highways and tree officers to ensure “the right trees are planted in the right places, and solutions are found that are compatible with highways standards and the needs of different users.” This clearly points to an individualised approach rather than a blanket percentage. Imposing arbitrary targets risk requiring tree planting in unsuitable locations, which could create practical conflicts and undermine good design. Adding excessive numbers of trees without regard to site-specific circumstances could also pose viability issues, particularly on constrained or higher-density sites where developable land is limited. A more flexible policy, proportionate to the scale and character of each site and supported by clear evidence, would be more consistent with national policy. This would still achieve meaningful increases in tree planting while avoiding unfair burdens on development and ensuring housing and employment delivery remains viable.

Comment

Representation ID: 14048

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Cogshall Lane)

I&O_14585
No. Although some sites may be capable of achieving more than the mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, it would not be reasonable or justified to impose a higher blanket standard over and above the nationally prescribed requirement. Any additional provision should be considered on a case-by-case basis, reflecting the specific circumstances of the site. Where developments are able to exceed the 10% requirement, this can be taken into account as part of the overall planning balance when individual applications are assessed.