Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 15914

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16473
The monitoring framework should reflect the policies that are contained within the final Local Plan. Based on the current Local Plan and the Issues and Options set out in this consultation the monitoring framework should therefore potentially include: Housing delivery per settlement; Housing delivery per policy requirement (house type and tenure etc.); and Housing delivery in relation to any set restriction or limitation (amount or percentage of housing on previously developed land, open countryside or Green Belt).

Comment

Representation ID: 15915

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16474
We have concerns in respect of Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan (NP), which has recently been subject to a review and consultation process which is seeking to apply policies that we consider to be of a strategic nature, that is to retain the settlement boundary that is tightly drawn around the urban area of the village together with accompanying policies restricting development outside of the settlement boundary. We have made representations expressing concern about this to the NP consultation, as these changes are being made in light of the emerging CWaC Local Plan which acknowledges an increase in housing need and lack of allocated housing sites to accommodate this as identified in the current CWaC Local Plan. In cases such as these, the emerging Local Plan (once adopted) should supersede any NP policies that do not comply with the Local Plan. This should be set out in Local Plan Policy wording. In the event that Neighbourhood Plans are adopted prior to the final adoption of the emerging Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plan policies need to be extremely flexible to allow for  changes that can occur to the distribution of housing land requirements when the Evidence base reports have been completed. For example, the Green Belt review may identify less opportunity for Green Belt release and increased delivery in other locations of the Borough is required. A significant aim of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is that Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) housebuilders should be supported because typically they deliver small and medium sized sites that are often built out relatively quickly. Ultimately it is clear that the Government recognise that supporting SMEs helps to diversify the housing supply, provide competition and innovation, and foster organic growth within communities. The NPPF promotes this by encouraging local authorities to allocate a portion of their housing requirement to smaller sites, and by providing tools and support to help SMEs bring these sites forward more quickly. This should be reflected in emerging alterations to NPs during the Local Plan review and the two sites put forward reflect the aim of supporting SMEs by their scale. Also where existing allocations in the Local Plan / NPs haven’t come forward during the existing plan period, and delivery of them is unlikely to come forward, then consideration should be had to alternative sites to ensure much needed delivery of new homes in order to meet identified need. This is applicable to Tattenhall as the land owner of the only remaining allocated Site in the village yet to be developed (Land to the rear of 68-84 Castlefields) has confirmed they have no plans to bring forward the current allocated site. Please refer to Enclosure 3 of this letter, ‘Notes of the informal meeting with Bolesworth Estate and Neighbouring Parish Councils’, dated 22nd May 2025, page 3 under ‘Land at Rear of Castlefields’.

Comment

Representation ID: 15916

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16475
The fourth aim ‘Protecting the Character’ gives off significant tones of restricting change. Significant development to support the rural economy and villages will be required over the plan period. This aim should be altered to reflect that high quality development is needed during the Plan period to ‘Support the Character’ of the rural area.

Comment

Representation ID: 15917

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16476
The Government has recognised there is a national housing crisis and the increased provision of suitable housing opportunities, including affordable and private homes, across the borough must be considered a key aim of 'promoting well-being'.

Comment

Representation ID: 15918

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16477
Key Service Centres currently accommodate approximately 1/6 of the residential development needs in the adopted Local Plan. In order to support and sustain the services in these centres then a similar proportion of the proposed housing numbers must be allocated to them. If not, other areas will grow faster to the detriment of the Key Service Centres, with services and facilities in these centres such as retail, health and education likely to move to other areas causing a loss of services in these centres over the Plan period. Overall we support the need for concise visions for the key places, but that this needs to include Key Service Centres in the rural area as otherwise there importance may not be reflected in the emerging Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 15919

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16478
SO9 and SO10 would need to be accompanied by updated settlement boundaries to take account for new development needed for the next Plan Period and retain flexibility for delivery if housing numbers are not being achieved.

Comment

Representation ID: 15920

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16479
The SA objectives do appear to cover a suitably wide range of social, environmental, and economic issues (e.g., climate change, health, housing, historic environment, transport). This breadth helps ensure the Local Plan’s policies are tested against appropriate outcomes.

Comment

Representation ID: 15921

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16480
Plan Objectives set out in the existing Local Plan and SA are very similar- the main difference is the locational policies i.e. SO1, SO3, S09 and SO10. Regardless the settlement boundaries will need to be revised to accommodate any of these objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 15922

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16481
A tail piece should be added to 'avoid development in locations of high environmental value and on high grade agricultural land' that reads 'unless allocated in the Local Plan' as these are expected to be factors considered in allocating land for development, and should not have be re-iterated at application stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 15923

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16482
The Government has issued many statements recognising there is a national housing crisis, and has updated the NPPF and increased housing requirements to reflect this. Therefore, it seems inconceivable why a reduced supply of housing land would be suggested in the early years of a new Local Plan. Please see Enclosure 4, a letter from The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government dated 18th August confirming ‘All areas of the country must play their part in building the homes we need’. In all likelihood given the Council's current position (and time it will take to get the Local Plan adopted) inevitably there will be a lower amount of development delivered in the early years of an emerging plan. In order to avoid a lag in delivery and actually achieve the Government aims of addressing the housing crisis, rather than defer them, Sites which are relatively unconstrained, well located to existing settlements and not of such a scale to cause significant issues on local infrastructure should be considered for release ahead of the emerging Local Plan adoption. Overall phasing delivery of Housing may be required, but if proposed such policies should not stifle potential early delivery of housing in the Local plan period. Any phasing policies for the delivery of housing must remain extremely flexible as delivery of the likely required large-scale sites will need large infrastructure inputs, alterations and complex Section 106 agreements, and these have historically been shown to take significant time to come forward. Therefore, it would only seem appropriate to phase large scale allocations rather than smaller ones which again meet the NPPF’s aim for SMEs and small-medium sites that can typically be delivered quicker.