Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 12398

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12915
The vision should include an aim to provide a sufficient supply of homes to meet the minimum housing needs of its residents as one of its key priorities.

Comment

Representation ID: 12399

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12916
We agree with the majority of the principles and priorities set out in Policy VI1. However, Cheshire West and Chester is currently facing a significant shortfall in housing numbers and, as detailed later in the consultation draft, is facing a significant increase in the number of new homes that will have to be delivered over the next plan period. We believe therefore that including housing delivery as a key Priority is an essential element of the Vision for the emerging plan and must be included in Policy VI1.

Comment

Representation ID: 12400

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12917
This approach is supported, however it should be expanded to include further settlements, including some of the larger villages in the rural areas. This would be consistent with the strategy approaches detailed later in the consultation, particularly Option B which would see sustainable and accessible villages in rural areas take relatively significant housing numbers.

Comment

Representation ID: 12401

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12918
Option B is preferable as it allows for development to be more evenly distributed across the authority. The current Local Plan objectives focus development primarily towards Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Winsford. While there is some logic to this approach, it should be noted that Chester and Ellesmere Port and to a large degree Northwich are all heavily constrained by the Green Belt, hampering their ability to deliver significant housing numbers without significant Green Belt release. Clearly, Winsford, on the other hand, is already equipped to support unconstrained housing growth.
Option B - use the Sustainability Appraisal objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 12402

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12919
Mitigating Climate change, point 1 should be amended to include a viability / practicality mechanism. It would be detrimental to the delivery of some sites to require low carbon design, embodied carbon and energy consumption measures where not viable or feasible. Point 2 states “Strategic sites should be connected to a district heat network. Where this is not currently feasible, new homes should be built with the necessary infrastructure in place to enable such connections to be easily integrated in the future.” A viability / practicality mechanism should be incorporated into this. It may be too onerous for some sites to deliver such infrastructure, particularly where there is no prospect of the district heat source coming forward in the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 12403

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12920
No. The Council should provide for at least the required minimum number of homes over the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 12404

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12921
Whilst there is some logic to this in that it may reduce the initial backlog, it is unclear if the Council will be able to deliver the commensurately much greater numbers of housing later in the plan period. Should a stepped approach be deployed, the PPG states that it is necessary to identify the stepped requirement in strategic housing policy, and to set out evidence to support this approach, and not seek to unnecessarily delay meeting identified development needs. Indeed, CWaC has already been exceeding its housing target on an annual basis since 2015. The Housing Delivery Test shows that completions stood at 276% of the residual local plan housing requirement over the last 3 years: 1,281 (2022), 1,530 (2023) and 1,399 (2024). The Local Planning Authority therefore has been planning positively for growth and has the momentum to achieve the increased Local Housing Need (LHN) early on in the new plan period. This has seen CWaC already ramping up towards the new LHN, before it was even published in late 2024. Walsingham and our client therefore consider that a lower stepped housing requirement is not appropriate in the early stages of the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 12405

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12922
Spatial Strategy Principles (SS3) suggests a strategy of brownfield within the built up area first, and allowing edge of settlement development where options within the built up area have been exhausted including the release of Green Belt land where needed. “The spatial strategy will follow the principle of directing new development and allocating land, towards  previously developed sites within settlements first, as they are the most sustainable locations with best access  to services and facilities… Where there are not enough planning permissions and opportunities for redevelopment within urban areas  and towns, the approach will be to develop on the edge of existing settlements in locations with the best access  to public transport and existing services and infrastructure, as the next best sustainable option” The principle of utilising brownfield land effectively is accepted. However, giving primacy to brownfield land within the built up area has the potential to delay permissions, as edge of settlement applications may have to wait for PDL opportunities to be exhausted before they are considered favourably. PDL is unlikely to deliver the quantum of new homes required, is often complex, and may require significant remediation before the site can be delivered, all affecting the timeliness and viability of delivery. See for example 21/05070/OUT, an outline planning permission for 1,550 dwellings on the former Winnington Works site, Northwich, which was validated in December 2021 and has yet to be granted permission, despite being an allocated site. We believe that, in order to deliver the requisite number of homes over the plan period, the Council should adopt a pragmatic approach and direct new development and allocate land on brownfield sites where feasible and viable, alongside sustainable development on the edge of settlements. The policy text could be reworded: Where there are limited feasible or viable planning permissions and opportunities for redevelopment  within urban areas and towns, the approach will be to develop on the edge of existing settlements in locations  with good access to public transport and existing services and infrastructure, or where these can be  provided or improved , as the next best sustainable option” In any event, pdl / brownfield usually comes to the market as windfall development, without the need for an allocation to enable its delivery, unless it is a very large redundant site, such as Winnington, mentioned above, where an allocation assists with a coherent masterplan strategy. Unlike most unallocated greenfield sites, pdl does not require a lack of five year supply or a Development Plan policy vacuum for it to come forward through the planning system. To ensure a secure pipeline of housing sites can continue to house the growing population, it is recommended that further greenfield sites are allocated, so that CWaC can continue to benefit from the significant boost in housing numbers which emerges from both brownfield windfall sites and edge-of-settlement allocations, which would not otherwise be delivered outside of a plan-led system.

Comment

Representation ID: 12408

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12925
We agree in principle to the settlement hierarchy suggested. It largely follows the sustainable development objectives outline in VI1. In particular, Winsford being a Tier 2 “Main Town” is supported, as it has excellent transport links and existing infrastructure, and is entirely unconstrained by Green Belt, in contrast to the other Main Towns of Northwich, Ellesmere Port and the city of Chester. All of these are heavily constrained by the Green Belt, albeit only to the north of Northwich, whereas to the south, Northwich’s growth appears to have almost reached its natural limit at the strong defensible boundary posed by the A556. The settlements with a level of facilities and services that meet the day-to-day needs of their residents and those living in surrounding areas are also supported for growth. It should be made clear in a future settlement hierarchy, once finalised, that these settlements are capable of supporting moderate development in terms of housing, owing to the level of services present and their transport links to the surrounding area.

Comment

Representation ID: 12409

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12926
Yes. Smaller settlements should have proportional levels of development- affordability is often a significant issue in smaller villages, with many younger families and rural workers unable to afford to own a home in the settlement they grew up or work in. Small scale allocations and windfall development at least proportionate to their natural growth needs should be supported in these locations, particularly where they provide affordable housing.