Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 5031

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5390
We agree that the level of growth that is anticipated is unlikely to be capable of being met within the urban area. As such, opportunities for Green Belt release do need to be assessed and a Green Belt Study is a crucial component of that. However, this could be comprised of organic extensions to current settlement boundaries or through the delivery of larger parcels which may or may not be contiguous and/or commensurate in scale with the host settlement (or a combination of both approaches). The Issues and Options consultation document includes consideration of three scenarios all of which appear to be considering strategic sites rather than incremental or smaller scale release of sites adjoining settlement boundaries. In the context of Wincham (which is considered as part of a functional zone serving Northwich), we feel that these strategic opportunities are worthy of consideration but it is inappropriate that other smaller-scale opportunities appear to have been discarded. The Green Belt Study should have informed this consultation stage, which would have then allowed a more effective assessment of the other candidate sites. Our view is that the preferred way forward would be a hybrid including strategic parcels and smaller incremental extensions that are closer to existing local services. We do agree that Wincham and its environs do provide an opportunity to accommodate appropriate growth for housing and employment uses, both by virtue of its public transport connectivity and access to existing services and planned employment. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5037

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5396
Whilst we agree that it would be appropriate to provide vision statements for these larger settlements (and that some smaller settlemnts will form part of their functional catchments), it should still be the case that these smaller settlements should be given some individual focus to establish what their role should be to contribute towards achieving the vision for the larger settlements. A case in point here is Wincham which is an established settlement which could accommodate appropriate growth but is not given commensurate focus to guide its future role and development. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5038

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5397
Given that the Issues and Options approach does consider a number of development scenarios, it would be reasonable to expect that the concise visions for both the key places and the smaller settlements would be adapted based upon which Option is adopted for that area.

Comment

Representation ID: 5043

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5402
We agree that these objectives will be challenging to adhere to, given the general thread of national policy and the very clear need to deliver more housing and employment across the district. None of these Objectives provide a framework (as written) which would allow smaller settlements to provide any meaningful contribution to meeting planned needs for housing or employment.  Objective S01 will need to be amended in order to support the opportunity for other settlements (such as Wincham) to contribute towards housing and employment requirements. Objective S03 will need to be amended in order to support the opportunity for rural settlements (such as Wincham) to contribute towards housing and employment requirements. Objective S09 will need to be amended in order to support the opportunity for other settlements (such as Wincham) to contribute towards housing and employment requirements. Objective S010 would need to be either deleted or fundamentally re-written. As such, it would impede the opportunity for other settlements (such as Wincham) to provide windfall contributions towards housing and employment requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 5044

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5403
We support Objective 22. In that context, we do feel that the development opportunities identified under Option C should have also had proper regard to opportunity sites close to bus and cycle routes as well as proximity to train stations. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5048

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5407
Whilst taking forward a stepped housing requirement can be politically expedient, it does "bake in" long standing issues in terms of poor housing delivery which typically translates to sustained issues in terms of impeded affordability in the local housing market. In contrast, we would encourage accelerated house building in the earlier part of the Plan period in order to mitigate the long-term structural problems which exist following deficiencies in supply and upward pressures to pricing and relative affordability.

Comment

Representation ID: 5057

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5416
We agree that the redevelopment of urban sites can be challenging in terms of resolving the need to make best use of urban land alongside consideration of density and height in the context of neighbouring uses. However, there can be hybrid opportunities to deliver higher density solutions on sites which are more capable of accommodating that scale and massing. A further factor in this regard can be typology, and solutions such as town housing and mid-format apartment developments can represent effective solutions in these contexts. In regard to the final part of SS3, this is entitled "Urban Extensions" but the text could be equally applied to smaller settlements that might be deemed as villages. The section might be better referred to as "Settlement Extensions".  

Comment

Representation ID: 5063

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5422
No. This phrasing would resist the opportunity for extensions to smaller settlements (other than infill or the use of PDL land). That impedes the opportunity to being forward a number of sites that adjoin settlements and their release would likely result in very limited Green Belt harm.  The word "infill" in the penultimate paragraph should be deleted. The phrasing of the final paragraph provides appropriate control. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5302

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5668
In reality, Option A proposes taking forward a suite of Local Plan objectives other than those that would not align with taking forward a Plan which could genuinely meet Plan-led requirements. Given that this is necessary in practical terms, the logic behind that is clear. Option B takes an alternative approach, and it is inevitable that there will be some momentum to take forward some of these ambitions through bespoke DM policies. However, it will be important that the imposition of these policies are properly assessed in terms of whether they might impede delivery of Plan-led requirements. This will include whole Plan viability assessment, which cannot be left to the DM stage. If this suite of policy requirements did render housing tpyologies undeliverable, then the suite of policy requirements should change accordingly.    

Comment

Representation ID: 5321

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5688
Option B proposes a suite of objectives that would represent an alternative approach. It feels more likely that there would be momentum to take forward some of these ambitions through bespoke DM policies. However, it will be important that the imposition of these policies are properly assessed in terms of whether they might impede delivery of Plan-led requirements. This will include whole Plan viability assessment, which cannot be left to the DM stage. If this suite of policy requirements did render housing tpyologies undeliverable, then the suite of policy requirements should change accordingly. Our experience of other Local Plan processes is that the whole Plan viability assessment is inadequate and leaves difficult decisions to DM stage which can include discussion on relative provision of planning obligations which therefore increases the risk with these SA Objectives.