Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 5563

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5935
It appears extremely unlikely that the reliance on Option A would get anywhere close to meeting Plan-led housing targets which should reflect national targets. As such, Option A does not reflect an appropriate spatial strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 5566

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5938
We would suggest the adoption of an amended version of Option C. That would take opportunities for smaller developments adjoining existing settlements (other than infill or PDL) and would also have better regard for locational sustainability. That would include giving proper consideration to sites within credible walking distances of public transport infrastructure (train and bus) and local services.  The list of identified settlements should also include Wincham.

Comment

Representation ID: 5568

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5940
No. As set out earlier we conclude that the best way forward is an amended version of Option C. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5580

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5952
We would suggest the adoption of an amended version of Option C. That would take opportunities for smaller developments adjoining existing settlements (other than infill or PDL) and would also have better regard for locational sustainability. The list of identified settlements should also include Wincham.

Comment

Representation ID: 5581

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5953
We would suggest the adoption of an amended version of Option C. That would take opportunities for smaller developments adjoining existing settlements (other than infill or PDL) and would also have better regard for locational sustainability. Whilst we agree that more focus should be given to encouraging development close to rural train stations, that should form part of a wider approach in terms of locational sustainability. That would include giving proper consideration to sites within credible walking distances of public transport infrastructure (train and bus) and local services.  We particularly note the opportunity for greater development in Wincham and Higher Wincham, and in that context the proximity to Lolstock Gralam train station is important. Empirical evidence demonstrates that walk distances of more than 1600m are acceptable and that would mean that development in or edge of Higher Wincham would be acceptably located in terms of proximity to bus routes and local services.  The list of identified settlements should also include Wincham.

Comment

Representation ID: 5585

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5957
We would suggest the adoption of an amended version of Option C. That would take opportunities for smaller developments adjoining existing settlements (other than infill or PDL) and would also have better regard for locational sustainability. Whilst we agree that more focus should be given to encouraging development close to rural train stations, that should form part of a wider approach in terms of locational sustainability. That would include giving proper consideration to sites within credible walking distances of public transport infrastructure (train and bus) and local services.  A key matter in this respect should be locational sustainability. At this point, the site selection exercise appears to have rejected numerous smaller sites at the edge of settlements by consequence of their position relative to current settlement boundaries rather than their locational sustainability and the potential for discernible levels of Green Belt harm. This is a significant oversight and failure.

Comment

Representation ID: 5586

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5958
As we have already set out, we would recommend the adoption of an amended version of Option C. That would take opportunities for smaller developments adjoining existing settlements (other than infill or PDL) and would also have better regard for locational sustainability. Whilst we agree that more focus should be given to encouraging development close to rural train stations, that should form part of a wider approach in terms of locational sustainability. That would include giving proper consideration to sites within credible walking distances of public transport infrastructure (train and bus) and local services.  We particularly note the opportunity for greater development in Wincham and Higher Wincham, and in that context the proximity to Lolstock Gralam train station is important. Empirical evidence demonstrates that walk distances of more than 1600m are acceptable and that would mean that development in or edge of Higher Wincham would be acceptably located in terms of proximity to bus routes and local services.  The list of identified settlements should also include Wincham.

Comment

Representation ID: 5611

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5983
We agree that opportunities for growth to the north-east of Northwich should be encouraged, particularly where there is proximity to public transport infrastructure and existing local services. To that extent, the identified location for residential uses at NOR2 has merit but it is evidently distinct from the existing settlement. We conclude that additional opportunities should be identified on the edge of Wincham and Higher Wincham (such as site ID 0743).

Comment

Representation ID: 5618

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5990
We feel that several settlements would merit their own place-based strategies to shape their opportunities to accommodate appropriate growth, and that should include the Wincham area. That would ensure that there is a clear framework to consider opportunities for growth to the north-east of Northwich. That would establish which proosals should be encouraged, particularly where there is proximity to public transport infrastructure and existing local services. To that extent, the identified location for residential uses at NOR2 has merit but it is evidently distinct from the existing settlement. We conclude that additional opportunities should be identified on the edge of Wincham and Higher Wincham (such as site ID 0743).

Comment

Representation ID: 5629

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_6001
We note that the extent of a sustainable area is shown through the proxy of an 800m radius around train stations- in this case Lolstock Gralam. However, this fails to have regard to the locational sustainability credentials that can be provided by proximity to bus services or simply being adjacent to established settlements which have existing services and infrastructure. We would also note that the 800m radius reflects a very arbitrary construct and fails to reflect the practical empirical evidence provided via the National Travel Survey in terms of the distances people will actually travel to destinations such as train stations and bus stops in connection with completing journeys for various purposes. It advises that the preferable metric is the 85% figure (so neither the mean nor the maximum figure provided by the empirical survey data). It states:  “When considering the potential walking catchment of a new development, to bus stop or railway station, the 85th percentile distance should be used.” On the basis of the above research 1610m represents an acceptable walking distance to a train station and 800m to a bus stop. That being the case, the 1610m threshold should be used instead of the 800m distance currently shown on the scenario mapping. In addition it should be noted that there will be a reasonable quantum of people (15%) who would find longer walk distances acceptable in practice. The distance from Lolstock Gralam train station to Higher Wincham is within 1610m radius so therefore within tolerance of that threshold. This represents an acceptable pedestrian journey on the basis of empirical data which should be relied upon rather than the current and entirely arbitrary 800m distance. Adoption of a more effective acceptable walk distance from train stations and genuine recognition of locational sustainability in the context of bus routes and proximity to existing services in settlements would provide a greater opportunity to meet Plan-led housing requirements. That and a more flexible approach to identifying their typology (which would currently be restricted to infill or PDL sites) would allow other sites close to or adjoining settlements to be properly considered on their merits.  This would include sites such as ID0743 (land at Linnards Lane) which immediately adjoins the settlement with good proximity to public transport and local services. The genuine extent of Green Belt harm would be very limited and it should not be discarded from consideration. The site could accommodate up to 40 new homes and provide at least policy compliant affordble housing and retain the established protected trees to the northern boundary which further softens the development edge.