Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 15934

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16493
This approach is also a preferred approach to option A as it ensures new homes are located close to existing services and facilities and generally provides a more equal distribution of development across the Borough. In addition the location of new development is not restricted to outside of Green Belt locations simply due to the historical designation. Particularly where these location may otherwise conflict with other principles of development. Consideration of the bus network is considered to be a key factor in applying this approach as the rail network in the borough is limited to the North, and focussing new development here is likely to come at the expense of the bus network. That is, if limited levels of new homes were provided in the south of the Borough and bus useage in this part of the Borough reduced as a result, services would also reduce and result in a spiral of decline for the bus service in the south of the Borough. To ensure this does not happen new homes need to also be provided along key bus routes. In applying this approach account must also be had to the level of other key services and facilities in the rural settlements and the accessibility of these for new development. Developing walkable neighbourhoods is also key to encouraging sustainable and healthy communities, and ultimately reducing the need to travel by private car, and align with the Council’s Climate Emergency Response Plan. Importantly new housing of at least past Local Plan proportions needs to be allocated to the rural area notably identified Key Service Centres in order to maintain their transport status and overcome the declining bus service. The required new Local Plan Transport Assessment should clearly consider the level of housing required to support the Bus network in the rural area to maintain and improve its services in this important part of the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 15935

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16494
Ultimately to ensure a sustainable pattern of residential development over the plan period public transport availability must be taken into account alongside the availability of local services and facilities. It should not be considered in isolation. Again, the required new Local Plan Transport Assessment should clearly consider the level of housing required to support the Bus network in the rural area to maintain and improve its services in this important part of the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 15936

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16495
It is suggested the following factors be taken in to account when considering new allocations: Sustainability and Accessibility: with consideration including proximity to public transport, services, employment, and existing infrastructure; Environmental Constraints: with consideration including flood risk, biodiversity impact, heritage assets, landscape sensitivity, and climate resilience; Deliverability and Viability: with consideration including land availability, ownership, infrastructure requirements, and financial feasibility; Infrastructure Capacity: with consideration including ability of utilities, highways, schools, and health facilities to accommodate growth; Alignment with Policy Objectives: with consideration including consistency with national planning policy, housing needs, economic growth targets, and regeneration priorities; Community and Social Considerations: with consideration including potential for creating cohesive, mixed, and healthy communities with good design; and Site Suitability and Scale: with consideration including physical characteristics (size, topography, access) and compatibility with surrounding uses. In considering the sites put forward in Tattenhall we do feel that there are no major constraints for development in principle when reviewing the sites against this summary list of factors.

Comment

Representation ID: 15937

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16496
EP01 would appear to be largest potential allocation identified in the proposed Local Plan Issues and Options document. Clearly it is a release from Green Belt, and should therefore only be considered acceptable following a robust assessment of the Green Belt. If it is felt not suitable for release then obviously the housing and employment elements from that allocation would need to be found elsewhere in the Borough. Earmarking this emerging allocation for development without this assessment is considered premature, and potentially would result in more suitable sites elsewhere in the Borough not being considered (both Green Belt land, and none Green Belt designated land). Also, this Site is likely to require large scale highway and service infrastructure to deliver it, as such a comprehensive delivery plan needs to be considered in detail and be used as a key driver for the release of this Site. This needs to be done early in the Local Plan process to ensure it does not hold up in delivery of much needed homes and employment floorspace in the Borough. If it is found that this Site can only be delivered later in the plan period then either the land should not be allocated, or significant flexibility is required in policy terms for the housing and employment elements to be delivered elsewhere, should it not come forward. Ultimately, once again this is why the allocation of a variety of sites (including mall to medium sites) in the Local Plan is key to delivery of the Borough’s housing needs in particular, hence the NPPF’s support for such sites being allocated and SME developers being supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 15938

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16497
As commented on SS 27, EP01 would appear to be largest potential allocation identified on the proposed Local Plan Issues and Options document. Clearly its release from Green Belt should only be considered if significant benefits can be derived from its release. Importantly this should be on a comprehensive basis not  piecemeal, to ensure maximum regeneration benefits. The Road network in particular would need to reviewed and the required infrastructure upgrades delivered by the Sites land owners and/or developers via appropriate mechanisms, that is through Section 106 agreements. This would need to be triggered early in the release and development of the Site, not upon completion of the development when the impacts of development will have already occurred. Again if the other large scale sites in Ellesmere Port can only be delivered late in the plan period then either they should not be allocated, or significant flexibility is required in policy terms for the housing and employment elements to be delivered elsewhere in the Borough in the event that they do not come forward in the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 15939

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16498
TAT02 is considered to be a suitable growth option for new housing in Tattenhall: this area of growth is located immediately to the east of an area of new housing developed under the current Local Plan period, and has been designed with through routes ready to link to parcels of land to the east of the village; the land to this part of the village is relatively free from development constraints and  this area of growth is within walking distance of the village with all its services and facilities, including bus stops and so represents a sustainable area for growth; the parts shown on the plans linked to these representations are under the control of an active Developer who is willing to bring the sites forward now; the area of land off Shire Way (see Enclosure 1 to this letter) will provide an opportunity for approximately 30 - 60 no. new homes (potentially delivered in 2 phases) with sufficient land for public open space and bio-diversity net gain, and the opportunity to extend further if required to meet the housing need in the Village; and the area to the rear of Kingscroft (see Enclosure 2 to this letter) has the capacity for up to 9 no. homes in an infill location with development on all four sides, and so will not have any impact on the open countryside. We fully support this area of growth, and believe it should be considered as a suitable area of growth under all of the options put forward by the Local Plan. Both the Sites of which Lexwood have an interest are within this area of growth, and are of a sufficient scale to make a difference to meeting the housing needs in the village without having any significant impact on local services and facilities. Moreover, supporting the allocations of these sites will enact the NPPF’s support for small-medium size sites and SME developers. The other areas of growth in Tattenhall are in the control of either large Developers or a single land owner, who as set out above is still yet to deliver the one remaining allocation in the current Local Plan (Land to the rear of 68-84 Castlefields). Overall TAT02 is considered to be a wholly appropriate location for growth as it encompasses an area of land which includes small-medium sites that can be delivered during the plan period in accordance with the current Neighbourhood Plan policies (specifically Policy 1, which restricts new development to schemes of no more than 30 no. dwellings). The other areas of growth in the village are each in the control of larger Developers and Landowners, and so typically can be more complex to deliver, delaying delivery. By focussing growth in area TAT02 it is considered that the allocations in the village will provide competition in housing delivery, and varied housing choice for the local community. Moreover it will spread the  responsibility of housing delivery during the plan period to larger and SME Developers.

Comment

Representation ID: 15940

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16499
We feel the existing allocation (Land to the rear of 68-84 Castlefields) adjacent to the land at Shire Way should be removed from the new local plan as it is our understanding that the majority landowner for the areas to the west and south of the Village (Bolesworth Estate) have expressed to the Parish Council an interest not to develop any land during this emerging plan period (please refer to Enclosure 3 to this letter, Notes of the informal meeting with Bolesworth Estate and Neighbouring Parish Councils dated 22nd May 2025). This therefore brings in to question growth areas TAT04, TAT05 and TAT06, which are also owned by the same Landowner. The question over deliverability of these areas of growth is raised, as if the Landowner has no plans to develop parts of their estate that benefit from a housing allocation (see Enclosure 3, page 3 under ‘Land at Rear of Castlefields’), the delivery of land that does not benefit from an allocation, and therefore needs active promotion followed by a planning application is clearly more onerous. These areas of growth are certainly therefore not expected to come forward early in the emerging Local Plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 15941

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16500
There are not considered to be any constraints to development in Tattenhall village, rather the other way around-a significant level of housing is needed to support the existing infrastructure in the village over the period. As set out in the Local Plan Issus and Options (Regulation 18) consultation document ‘Key Issues’ in the Transport and Accessibility Section (14): 'There is a picture of falling bus services and patronage and high levels of car ownership, meaning congestion, and  improving access to public and community transport for those without a car remains an issue. However, we need to acknowledge that car travel will remain the preferred mode of transport in some areas of the borough.’  It is also noted that in the ‘Place Background Paper- Tattenhall’ that concern is raised about the local centre in the village, which has diminished in recent years with closures or changes of use. One way to reverse the spiral of decline of bus services and local shops, particularly in the rural southern areas of the Borough, is to ensure continued patronage of these services through building new homes, and thereby ensuring that there are sufficient people in the local community to support the bus services and businesses over the emerging Local Plan period. In addition, the local Primary School hasn't been full in recent years and new households are needed to support the school and provide students over the emerging plan period. The Doctors surgery is also considered to be outdated and new housing will provide Developer contributions to aid in providing new and improved facilities. Overall, new development is needed to maintain and support existing local infrastructure, services and facilities. This approach should ensure that Government money to support these services and facilities is minimised.

Comment

Representation ID: 15942

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16501
Until the policy approach is identified amendments to these policies are very uncertain.

Comment

Representation ID: 15943

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16502
Yes, there should be separate policies for land that will continue to be designated Green Belt and Open Countryside in the emerging Local Plan given the different status and levels of protection that these areas are given in National Policy.