Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 9160

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9653
We agree with the approach to updating employment allocations to support additional growth within Chester. This should be balanced with suitable housing allocations and urban extensions, such as allocation of the Mannings Lane site detailed within this report.

Comment

Representation ID: 9161

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9654
Parking standards should be amended for locations in and around Chester’s urban core to reflect the presence of sustainable transport options, including the Millennium Greenway, rail and bus connections available within and around the city. Reduced standards should be, at minimum, encouraged where development can demonstrate sustainable connections, however flexibility should be provided to account for different types of parking requirements across housing types. This will encourage sustainable travel, reduce car trip and congestion, and enable more efficient use of land.

Comment

Representation ID: 9162

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9655
TA 2 includes the T 2 A56 Hoole Road Corridor, which confirms the route for the corridor, and allocates land for a 5th park and ride site at the junction of the M53/A56. The Corridor runs along the southeastern boundary of the Site, with the park and ride site located within the Site to the northeast. The corridor and park and ride site should be retained. Early proposals for the Mannings Lane site allow for the continued allocation of the park and ride, and/or other transport hub solutions in this location should they be deemed more feasible. The proposals would also provide links from the Millenium Greenway to the County Sports Club to the northwest of the site. As such T 2 should be retained within the emerging Local Plan, with flexibility over size and transport service provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 9163

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9656
No, contributions should not be limited to major developments. It would be expected that contributions would be calculated on a case-by-case basis with regard to a) the scale of development and b) the expected impact. It is expected that some smaller developments are likely to impact infrastructure and services, and the cost of this should not fall to major developments, which will already be contributing to infrastructure as necessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 9164

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9657
No, we do not agree. Where infrastructure is required to deliver a site, but will provide infrastructure not exclusive to the scheme, a contribution commensurate of the impact of the new development on such infrastructure should be required, rather than the full cost.

Comment

Representation ID: 9165

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9658
It is agreed that new development should be based on the most up-to date housing needs evidence, this being the Housing Needs Assessment to be prepared or any later version. The policy should also enable flexibility where local evidence and market knowledge demonstrates an alternative mix/type requirement. Policies for older persons and specialist housing, including the optional technical housing standards, should be based on evidence of need and tested for viability. Through including such wording, the policy is able to adapt to changing housing needs and further ensure the correct housing mix and type is applied to new developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 9166

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9659
No, the policy should not apply explicit percentages, as this would conflict with the flexible approach described and justified under HO 1. However, a range of percentages (e.g. 5-10%) would provide developers with clear expectations whilst allowing for development to account for individual site needs and constraints. Should a percentage approach be adopted, it is likely that the Council will be forced to accommodate departures from policy in order to enable the necessary development in line with local housing needs. A flexible approach also requiring consideration against the Housing Needs Assessment (or any such later document) would enable sites to more accurately meet local market demands and respond to updated assessments in real time.

Comment

Representation ID: 9167

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9660
Yes, we agree with the proposed approach to residential development, in particular the retention of DM19. It may be useful to amend the policy in order to account for the ‘Golden Rules’ as set out by the NPPF in relation to development in the grey belt. The amount of affordable housing a scheme can provide depends on the overall viability of a project and a flexible approach is needed to take account of the circumstances of individual schemes. The approach should be justified by up-to-date evidence of need and viability tested as deliverability should not be compromised by over ambitious requirements. The Council should identify the areas where affordable housing is most needed and take a flexible approach where need is greatest to ensure delivery is achieved wherever feasible.

Comment

Representation ID: 9168

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9661
Whilst we recognise the importance of separation distances in order to protect residential amenity and prevent overlooking, we believe that this would better be served as part of a design guide or supplementary guidance document (SPD). An SPD would enable the LPA to review appropriate separation distances across a range of locations and types of development, in order to respond to individual needs across the district.

Comment

Representation ID: 9169

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9662
It is essential that new developments, particularly major developments, provide an appropriate level outdoor amenity space, or public open space. As with HW 3, this is something that could be progressed in detail within an outdoor amenity and open space SPD, establishing thresholds, requirements and exceptions for outdoor amenity and open space within new developments. This may include garden sizes, POS thresholds and play requirements.