Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 2589

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2742
Yes, we agree and welcome this proposal.

Comment

Representation ID: 2590

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2743
Yes this should be part of the Local Plan strategy but the definition of flood storage should be a broad one , encompassing the many different methods of holding back water, including: leaky dams, ponds and wetland flow attenuation, flood plain reconnection to increase flood plain storage where feasible, tree planting in appropriate locations, soil management to reduce soil compaction and poor soil health (leading to poor attenuation of rainfall), lowland peat restoration, small-scale urban swales and rain-gardens, SuDS, etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 2591

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2744
The Local Plan should mandate water neutrality for new development such that the development is (a) water efficient (b) does not lead to any increase in runoff from the land’s previous use, through application of SuDS and / or natural flood management measures (as per the GLA’s Policy) rather than just a “do what you can” requirement.  As set out above, new development should only proceed when there is confirmed existing capacity of the drainage systems, sewerage systems, wastewater treatment systems and water supply/water resources infrastructure to meet the additional demands OR where additional capacity can be provided and funded by the development within the timescales of the new development (i.e. not some 10-20 years down the line).

Comment

Representation ID: 2592

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2745
Yes we broadly agree and pleased to see reference to LNRS in this section but it also needs to be included elsewhere (as per our comments above) and not just seen as a “silo” stand-alone policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 2593

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2746
Yes, agree but it is not just woodland that needs a contribution and there are other, arguably more important habitats, that also need recovery beyond woodland, for example lowland peat, estuarine habitats, river channel habitats, etc.  There seems an over-prominence of concern for woodland above the other key habitats in Cheshire West .  Lowland peat and estuarine vegetation have a much greater carbon sequestration capacity than woodland, so we need to see action for these habitats.

Comment

Representation ID: 2594

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2747
Yes, if at all possible but at the very least the 10% must be achieved in all cases and developers must be held to account to actually deliver the 10%.

Comment

Representation ID: 2595

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2748
There are actions that can be taken to enhance the woodland cover of the Mersey Forest but as set out above for GI2, there are equally (or there is an even greater need) for the Local Plan to support all habitat and nature recovery in Cheshire West, including lowland peat habitat, estuarine and river habitat. There seems an over-prominence of concern for woodland above the other key habitats in Cheshire West .  

Comment

Representation ID: 2596

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2749
Yes, this is important.

Comment

Representation ID: 2597

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2750
Yes.

Comment

Representation ID: 2598

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2751
Yes, we welcome inclusion of water efficiency standards to the higher level.  Although perhaps covered elsewhere, sustainable constructions should also include sustainable drainage requirements (as set out earlier).