Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 2069

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2189
This strategy relates to focusing development in and around settlements on the railway network and main bus routes. Focusing development in locations which are already sustainable could be to the detriment of other location which at present are less sustainable however have the potential to become sustainable through investment in infrastructure which may not happen unless supported by additional growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 2070

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2190
MCI considers that some of the areas of land listed are not showstoppers to development, and they should not all be classified as such. The Council should undertake a further review to determine: which areas mean no development will be appropriate, which of the local designations could be reconsidered, and which areas would require mitigation as part of a development proposal. Key settlement gaps, are only a local designation protected by a policy in the Local Plan. The Council should look to review these areas as part of the preparation of a new Local Plan as it considers its housing need for the future and the sustainability of locations suitable for development to determine if any of these gaps should be considered for development as many of these area will be sustainable.

Comment

Representation ID: 2071

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2191
The methodology for assessment of sites should be clearly set out and carefully followed to ensure consistency. Site assessments should use desk top information in relation to flood risk, public rights of way, historic land uses etc, comments received during consultation and also via site visits to ensure that this is a comprehensive process which is not flawed. When assessing sites for allocation in the new Local Plan the Council should be considering the need to deliver affordable housing across the Borough and may wish to discuss this need with developers such as MCI who provide 100% affordable housing to understand how issues which are being faced by them and also RP’s to ensure that this is taken into consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 2072

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2192
The Council should look at how local service centres in rural areas which they consider are less sustainable than urban areas and key services centres could be made more sustainable via the allocation of sites for development. The Council should look at how local service centres such as Moulton that within the countryside in close proximity to urban areas of Northwich and Winsford and also high frequency bus routes form part of the potential growth areas identified in map 5.3 and section 5.1 as they appear to have been overlooked.

Comment

Representation ID: 2074

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2194
MCI generally agree with the approach suggested to the countryside and Green Belt. A Green Belt Review should be undertaken and any new policy should reflect the current position in relation to grey belt which should be considered as part of the Green Belt Review.

Comment

Representation ID: 2076

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2196
MCI considered that there should be separate policies for the countryside and Green Belt for clarity.

Comment

Representation ID: 2077

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2197
The policy should also identify uses which are appropriate in the countryside, such as rural exception sites. Policy in relation to rural exception sites should be flexible to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan to enable rapid response to changes.  

Comment

Representation ID: 2078

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2198
Redevelopment should not be limited to the same use, it should however be subject to the other relevant policies within the local plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 2081

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2201
MCI generally agree with the approach towards transport and accessibility. Whilst MCI agree with new development being encouraged in more sustainable locations there should also be the opportunity for new development to assist in making locations which are currently less sustainable more sustainable, enhancing existing the vitality of communities. Sustainability also varies across locations as identified within paragraph 82 of the NPPF “ where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby”.

Comment

Representation ID: 2082

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2202
Paragraph 35 of the NPPF require Plans to set out the contributions expected from development, including affordable housing and other infrastructure. It is important that such policies do not undermine the deliverability of the Plan and as such a viability assessment should be undertaken as part of the preparation of the local plan to demonstrate that the contributions are justified. Development should only be required to mitigate its own impact and cannot be required to address existing deficiencies in infrastructure or services. It is therefore essential for the Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) to clearly show the existing and known deficiencies in the current infrastructure, before reaching any conclusion on the cumulative effects of new development, and any contribution that is needed from new development to mitigate any additional individual and/or cumulative impacts. A policy that would encourage and support the provision of digital connectivity could be appropriate, however, any requirements on developers should not go beyond the provision of infrastructure as set out in the statutory Building Regulations. The HBF considers that the Council should work closely with the providers of digital infrastructure, to ensure that appropriate provision is provided, and that the onus is placed on those who can actually provide the appropriate infrastructure. The HBF does not consider that it is necessary to provide a policy to incentivise the development industry, the industry is already well aware of the benefits of infrastructure and the requirements of those looking to purchase a new homes and can self-police the cost/benefit of this provision with regards to site viability.