Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 13977

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

I&O_14497
We do not agree that Areas of Special County Value (ASCVs) should be treated as a ‘showstopper’ constraint. This approach is inconsistent with paragraph 11b of the NPPF, which, through footnote 7, sets out the specific national policy constraints to be considered when preparing new strategic policies. These include designations such as Green Belt, Local Green Space, National Landscapes, National Parks, and other heritage assets. It is clear from this national guidance that local landscape designations, such as ASCVs, do not carry the same statutory weight and should not be treated as an entirely prohibitive constraint. Instead, they should be considered alongside other material factors within the overall planning balance. In the case of ASCVs, it is also important to recognise that these areas were originally identified in the 1970s based on perceived landscape characteristics and features. However, the Local Landscape Designations Review (Bayou Bluenvironment, 2017) acknowledges significant limitations in the robustness of this designation, noting that “detailed descriptions of the features of value within each ASCV are not available” and that the areas were “by and large, fairly extensive but their boundaries were not precisely defined”. This raises fundamental questions over the validity and accuracy of the original mapping. Furthermore, the 2017 review did not re-examine the boundaries in detail, stating that such work “was beyond the scope of the study”. As most of the land within ASCVs lie in private ownership, the review relied largely on map and aerial photograph analysis, leading to only very minor amendments being made. Given these acknowledged uncertainties and the absence of a robust, up-to-date, and evidence-based definition of boundaries and features of value, it is essential that any reliance on ASCVs as a planning constraint is preceded by a thorough, field-based reassessment. Without such a review, there is a risk of over-reliance on historic and potentially inaccurate designations, thereby unduly restricting sustainable development opportunities in areas such as Tarporley where the original designation may no longer be justified.

Comment

Representation ID: 13978

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

I&O_14498
When assessing sites for allocation, the Council should apply a proportionate, up-to-date, and evidence-based approach that aligns with the NPPF’s balanced presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means relying on robust and current data, ensuring local non-statutory designations such as ASCVs are reviewed in detail before being treated as significant constraints, and weighing them appropriately alongside the need to meet housing and economic requirements. Site assessments should prioritise deliverability, viability, and sustainability, considering ownership, infrastructure capacity, market interest, and accessibility to services, while maintaining flexibility to respond to changing needs over the plan period. This will ensure the Local Plan allocates suitable, available, and achievable sites to meet identified needs in a sound manner.

Comment

Representation ID: 13979

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

I&O_14499
We consider the north-eastern part of TARP05 to be the most suitable growth area within Tarporley due to its strong connectivity, absence of significant constraints, and single land ownership, which would support deliverability. The landowner is a longstanding Tarporley resident who has a track record of being involved in the delivery of high-quality residential development (land to the south of Tarporley). The landowner wishes to ensure that development of the land will provide opportunities to improve local community infrastructure. However, as outlined above in our response to Question SS20, we believe the Council should also consider land further to the east. The designation of this land as an Area of Special County Value should not, in our view, preclude development, particularly given that the original evidence base is both incomplete and out of date. There has been no recent review to account for significant boundary changes and other material developments, such as the construction of the Tarporley Bypass (A49) in the 1980s. These factors warrant a fresh assessment of the area’s suitability for growth. There are also parts of TARP05 that we believe should be excluded. Specifically, the portion of land between Rode Street and Utkinton Road which is owned by the Utkinton Road Syndicate Ltd. This syndicate comprises eleven householders along Utkinton Road whose stated aim is to prevent development. As a result, the remaining land to the rear, previously the subject of a withdrawn residential application (Ref: 21/04398/OUT by Hollins Land), would be left isolated. We therefore consider this part of TARP05 to be undeliverable and unsuitable for allocation. We also have concerns about the part of TARP05 located south of Rode Street. This land is fragmented across approximately ten different land titles (see Figure 1), which would present significant challenges to comprehensive delivery. Given the urgent need for housing in both Tarporley and the wider borough, it is essential that allocated sites are readily deliverable; multiple ownerships of this scale can severely delay or even prevent development. Furthermore, development here could adversely affect the setting of the Conservation Area, particularly given its proximity to and visual relationship with Tarporley’s historic high street. (See Figure 1 in attachment)

Comment

Representation ID: 13980

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

I&O_14500
With regard to the TARP02 growth area, we understand our client also owns land which covers part of this area, has some non-residential development potential but is not part of our partnership, we wish to highlight concerns about constraints which, in our view, limit the area’s suitability for residential development. First, the sewage treatment works, owned and operated by United Utilities (UU), is located near the centre of the allocation. Such facilities typically have operational requirements and odour/noise safeguarding zones, which can restrict the developable area, affect the quality of the residential environment, and require buffer zones that reduce housing yield. The proximity of the sewage works to proposed residential development is highlighted by UU to a development of 44 homes by CB Homes. Secondly, Wettenhall Brook runs directly through the middle of the site. The presence of this watercourse, together with the associated Flood Zones 2 and 3, presents both environmental and technical challenges. It introduces potential conflict with national policy requirements to direct growth away from areas of highest flood risk. Taken together, these constraints, both individually and cumulatively, pose serious questions over whether TARP02 can be delivered in a timely, viable, and policy-compliant manner when compared with less constrained alternatives. We also have concerns regarding the deliverability of TARP03 and TARP04, both located to the south-east of Tarporley High Street. The area’s historic character and setting are central to Tarporley’s identity, and inappropriate development in such close proximity risks causing irreversible harm. The impact on NPPF Footnote 7 designated sites mean that development in locations should only be considered after locations which are not so constrained, such as TARP05. A further key concern with TARP03 and TARP04 is the lack of an appropriate access point. Land to the south of the allocation is currently the subject of a residential planning application by Jones Homes (Ref: 25/01752/FUL). If approved, this proposal does not make provision for, or safeguard, an access point into the remainder of the growth area. The only other potential access would be from the High Street, however, this location not only lies within the Conservation Area but is also designated as Local Green Space in the adopted Tarporley Neighbourhood Plan. This designation affords strong protection from development and was cited as a reason for refusal in a previous planning application for the land. In light of these cumulative constraints, heritage sensitivity, absence of safeguarded access, and the policy protection of the only alternative access point, we also consider TARP03 and TARP04 to face substantial challenges to their deliverability and long-term suitability for allocation. It is also worthy of note that the assumptions about the ability of the growth options has been grossly overestimated as these have no regard to constraints.

Comment

Representation ID: 13984

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

I&O_14504
While the protection of the borough’s countryside is important, it is essential that policy decisions are underpinned by a robust and up-to-date evidence base, rather than seeking to preserve rural character for its own sake. The intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be assessed objectively, and opportunities for sustainable development should be considered where they do not compromise significant environmental or landscape assets.

Comment

Representation ID: 13985

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

I&O_14505
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: 13986

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

I&O_14506
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: 13988

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

I&O_14508
As discussed earlier in response to Question SS 20, ASCVs were designated in the 1970s based on broad landscape characteristics, and the Local Landscape Designations Review (Bayou Bluenvironment, 2017) highlights limitations in their robustness, including imprecise boundaries and a lack of detailed descriptions of valued features. The review did not comprehensively reassess boundaries, relying primarily on maps and aerial photography, which raises questions over the accuracy and relevance of the designation today. We therefore disagree that the ASCVs continue to be identified on the policies map until a robust review has taken place as part of the evidence base supporting the NEW Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 13989

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

I&O_14509
Yes. We consider it essential that ASCVs are subject to a thorough, field-based reassessment. Given the uncertainties around the original designation, and the lack of up-to-date, evidence-based boundaries and assessment of landscape value, reliance on ASCVs without review risks unduly restricting sustainable development opportunities. Any future policy should ensure ASCVs are applied proportionately and in an evidence-led manner, reflecting current landscape conditions and avoiding automatic constraints on suitable development.

Comment

Representation ID: 13990

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

I&O_14510
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 an arbitrary target risks 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.