Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 15375

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15934
The Trust are supportive of the retention of objective SO1, which enables Northwich to continue to develop, ancillary to the role of Chester as a sub-regional city and therefore, be a suitable place for ongoing development. As part of a second tier in terms of the spatial strategy to accommodate future development, Northwich provides a key focus in the east of the Borough. Northwich is defined as the town of Northwich and adjacent settlements of Anderton, Barnton, Davenham, Hartford, Lostock Gralam, Lower Marston, Lower Wincham, Rudheath and Weaverham. It is the secondary settlements, such as Lostock Gralam, that offer opportunity for expansion of an appropriate scale. Maintaining the character of the settlements whilst increasing population to support local schools and services. Such settlements are sustainably-located to benefit from the services and facilities of Northwich itself, whilst being able to develop independently. Particular focus should be placed on those settlements with a train station, offering strong sustainability credentials, such as Lostock Gralam.  The Trust are supportive of the retention of objective SO9 which focuses development within and on the edge of main urban areas and key service centres. This is in accordance with all suggested spatial strategies which focus the largest areas of development on key service centres. Objective SO10 aims to protect the Green Belt. Whilst the Trust are not necessarily against the suggested objective, there are two key points to consider: New national policy regarding Grey Belt opportunities for development within the Green Belt. Given this, and in consideration against the Council’s current housing position aligned with the new NPPF policy, it is submitted that the  Council must support those sites that merit consideration as a Grey Belt opportunity, subject to infrastructure improvements in the locality, open space / recreation / BNG improvements, and affordable housing provision 15% above standard LPA policy (will be 45%). The Trust land at Lostock Gralam offers such an opportunity. Release of Green Belt to accommodate necessary allocation for development, e.g. housing, is not prohibited by national policy.  Through reasoned strategic justification, boundaries can be amended through the Local Plan review process. If such an approach is pursued by the Council, The Trust land at Lostock Gralam provides such an opportunity, without compromising the sustainability principles of the Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 15387

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15946
The Sustainability appraisal objectives are less place specific. It is not clear the impact of these on policy as a whole. Applying the Local Plan objectives (Option A - take forward the current Local Plan objectives) provide a more specific direction for local planning policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 15388

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15947
The Trust do not see any reason for the Council not to deliver on their increased housing target over the plan period. An up-to-date housing needs assessment would be welcomed to ensure the target is accurate for the housing demand across the Borough, most notably for the second-tier settlements such as Northwich. The Trust do not believe the Council should consider a stepped housing requirement, planning for a lower level of delivery earlier in the plan period. Reference is made by the Council to a quantum of undeveloped planning permissions and undeveloped Local Plan allocations, the basis for which they would justify a stepped approach presumably. The counter argument is to ask why permissions haven’t been implemented and why allocations have not been progressed through Planning. Constraints are clearly precluding these development opportunities, the majority of which may be insurmountable and so the quantum may be deemed available but simply not deliverable.  

Comment

Representation ID: 15389

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15948
The Trust do not see any reason for the Council not to deliver on their increased housing target over the plan period. An up-to-date housing needs assessment would be welcomed to ensure the target is accurate for the housing demand across the Borough, most notably for the second-tier settlements such as Northwich. The Trust do not believe the Council should consider a stepped housing requirement, planning for a lower level of delivery earlier in the plan period. Reference is made by the Council to a quantum of undeveloped planning permissions and undeveloped Local Plan allocations, the basis for which they would justify a stepped approach presumably. The counter argument is to ask why permissions haven’t been implemented and why allocations have not been progressed through Planning. Constraints are clearly precluding these development opportunities, the majority of which may be insurmountable and so the quantum may be deemed available but simply not deliverable.  

Comment

Representation ID: 15390

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15949
The Trust support these spatial strategy principles. This ensures that future residential development still follows the hierarchical position as per the adopted Local Plan, with Northwich settlements in the second tier. Grey Belt opportunities can be accommodated, together with small scale urban extensions on open countryside or Green Belt release in the second-tier settlements such as Northwich, together with appropriate levels in the key service centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 15391

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15950
The Trust express support for the settlement hierarchy, as per the existing Local Plan, as put forward by Policy SS 4. Northwich and Winsford, as the key settlements in the eastern part of the Borough should be strongly promoted for future development and form a key part of the Plan’s vision. Northwich in particular offers good opportunity for a place-based policy, to include the associated settlements of Anderton, Barnton, Davenham, Hartford, Lostock Gralam, Lower Marston, Lower Wincham, Rudheath and Weaverham, with particular focus on those that offer sustainability infrastructure such as a train station, e.g. Lostock Gralam. Promoting growth in the ‘supplementary’ settlements for Northwich, ensures the ‘core’ settlement does not lose its identity, whilst increasing population to support local schools and services and maintaining the character of the wider settlements. Such settlements are sustainably-located to benefit from the services and facilities of Northwich itself, whilst being able to develop independently.

Comment

Representation ID: 15392

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15951
A change in the national government objectives with significantly increased housing targets have changed the circumstances of development in CWAC since the adoption of the Local Plan (Part One). Brownfield land within settlement boundaries is a finite resource and availability is only reducing. Hence, extensions to existing settlements must be a supported option. This can include both open countryside land and Green Belt release, so long as the scale of such extensions is appropriate to the strategic growth of established settlements.  Should Green Belt release be justified, which it is in particular locations, as it is the only option geographically for the expansion of some settlements, this is best served by small-scale releases across a series of appropriate locations. Most notably the first and second tiers of the settlement hierarchy, so including Northwich (and associated settlement such as Lostock Gralam). Therefore, The Trust are in favour of the retention of Green Belt land per se, whilst recognising that some small-scale release of Green Belt is likely to be required in strategic locations to support the new housing target. Large urban extensions are not necessary and are not supported. In order to meet the new housing targets and contribute to boosting the supply of homes, The Trust would consider that areas of the Green Belt which met the Grey Belt definition should be the priority for release from Green Belt designation. What is required is an updated Green Belt Study, comparable to that undertaken for the last Local Plan review. However, unlike the previous Study, which only assessed Green Belt around the settlement boundary of Chester, any new Study is now required to include assessment of Green Belt around all Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements – Northwich and associated settlements specifically included. This would allow for development of the small parcels of land which are surrounded by, or well related to, existing development and are not contributing to the purposes of the Green Belt. Additionally, Green Belt policies should reflect the change in national policy with the recognition of grey belt land and its development as an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. If the council were minded not to release any Green Belt where there is existing development on all sides, this land could be developed under a grey belt policy. The Trust would consider that development on this basis, identifying areas which not contributing to the Green Belt and either releasing them or developing them under a grey belt approach would allow the council to reach their housing targets without large scale Green Belt release which would have an adverse impact on the key settlements and the surrounding area. In summary, none of the three presented Options can be supported, as presented. The suggested spatial strategy approach is a revised Option B, to include consideration of small-scale release of Green Belt (akin to Grey Belt definition) in appropriate locations. This can include Chester to a certain degree, but priority should be given to the second tier settlements, such as Northwich and the associated settlements such as Lostock Gralam.

Comment

Representation ID: 15393

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15952
A change in the national government objectives with significantly increased housing targets have changed the circumstances of development in CWAC since the adoption of the Local Plan (Part One). Brownfield land within settlement boundaries is a finite resource and availability is only reducing. Hence, extensions to existing settlements must be a supported option. This can include both open countryside land and Green Belt release, so long as the scale of such extensions is appropriate to the strategic growth of established settlements.  Should Green Belt release be justified, which it is in particular locations, as it is the only option geographically for the expansion of some settlements, this is best served by small-scale releases across a series of appropriate locations. Most notably the first and second tiers of the settlement hierarchy, so including Northwich (and associated settlement such as Lostock Gralam). Therefore, The Trust are in favour of the retention of Green Belt land per se, whilst recognising that some small-scale release of Green Belt is likely to be required in strategic locations to support the new housing target. Large urban extensions are not necessary and are not supported. In order to meet the new housing targets and contribute to boosting the supply of homes, The Trust would consider that areas of the Green Belt which met the Grey Belt definition should be the priority for release from Green Belt designation. What is required is an updated Green Belt Study, comparable to that undertaken for the last Local Plan review. However, unlike the previous Study, which only assessed Green Belt around the settlement boundary of Chester, any new Study is now required to include assessment of Green Belt around all Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements – Northwich and associated settlements specifically included. This would allow for development of the small parcels of land which are surrounded by, or well related to, existing development and are not contributing to the purposes of the Green Belt. Additionally, Green Belt policies should reflect the change in national policy with the recognition of grey belt land and its development as an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. If the council were minded not to release any Green Belt where there is existing development on all sides, this land could be developed under a grey belt policy. The Trust would consider that development on this basis, identifying areas which not contributing to the Green Belt and either releasing them or developing them under a grey belt approach would allow the council to reach their housing targets without large scale Green Belt release which would have an adverse impact on the key settlements and the surrounding area. In summary, none of the three presented Options can be supported, as presented. The suggested spatial strategy approach is a revised Option B, to include consideration of small-scale release of Green Belt (akin to Grey Belt definition) in appropriate locations. This can include Chester to a certain degree, but priority should be given to the second tier settlements, such as Northwich and the associated settlements such as Lostock Gralam.

Comment

Representation ID: 15394

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15953
A change in the national government objectives with significantly increased housing targets have changed the circumstances of development in CWAC since the adoption of the Local Plan (Part One). Brownfield land within settlement boundaries is a finite resource and availability is only reducing. Hence, extensions to existing settlements must be a supported option. This can include both open countryside land and Green Belt release, so long as the scale of such extensions is appropriate to the strategic growth of established settlements.  Should Green Belt release be justified, which it is in particular locations, as it is the only option geographically for the expansion of some settlements, this is best served by small-scale releases across a series of appropriate locations. Most notably the first and second tiers of the settlement hierarchy, so including Northwich (and associated settlement such as Lostock Gralam). Therefore, The Trust are in favour of the retention of Green Belt land per se, whilst recognising that some small-scale release of Green Belt is likely to be required in strategic locations to support the new housing target. Large urban extensions are not necessary and are not supported. In order to meet the new housing targets and contribute to boosting the supply of homes, The Trust would consider that areas of the Green Belt which met the Grey Belt definition should be the priority for release from Green Belt designation. What is required is an updated Green Belt Study, comparable to that undertaken for the last Local Plan review. However, unlike the previous Study, which only assessed Green Belt around the settlement boundary of Chester, any new Study is now required to include assessment of Green Belt around all Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements – Northwich and associated settlements specifically included. This would allow for development of the small parcels of land which are surrounded by, or well related to, existing development and are not contributing to the purposes of the Green Belt. Additionally, Green Belt policies should reflect the change in national policy with the recognition of grey belt land and its development as an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. If the council were minded not to release any Green Belt where there is existing development on all sides, this land could be developed under a grey belt policy. The Trust would consider that development on this basis, identifying areas which not contributing to the Green Belt and either releasing them or developing them under a grey belt approach would allow the council to reach their housing targets without large scale Green Belt release which would have an adverse impact on the key settlements and the surrounding area. In summary, none of the three presented Options can be supported, as presented. The suggested spatial strategy approach is a revised Option B, to include consideration of small-scale release of Green Belt (akin to Grey Belt definition) in appropriate locations. This can include Chester to a certain degree, but priority should be given to the second tier settlements, such as Northwich and the associated settlements such as Lostock Gralam.

Comment

Representation ID: 15395

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15954
The Trust would consider that Option C has some potential, particularly with reference to modest urban extensions around Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements. What needs to be clarified is that these extensions would be accommodated through limited Green Belt release in addition to areas of open countryside. Particular emphasis needs to me made on the Tier 2 settlements in the eastern part of the Borough, such as Northwich, to ensure investment is directed to such areas and not necessarily monopolised in the western part of the Borough around Chester & Ellesmere Port. If this more distributed pattern of development was pursued, through modest urban extensions via both Green Belt release and countryside land, so balancing the geographical expansion of a number of settlements where there is a Grey Belt / Countryside geographic distinction, this would avoid the potential for urban sprawl and such an Option can be favoured.