Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 5365

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Map 5.7
I&O_5736
For housing: WIN03, WIN04, WIN6 (mixed use) and WIN07.

Comment

Representation ID: 5368

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Map 5.7
I&O_5739
Whether road infrastructure within Winsford could accommodate demand from development of area WIN05.

Comment

Representation ID: 5377

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Map 5.18
I&O_5748
Any allocation which supports only Growth Option C would detract from the most appropriate spatial strategy for the new Local Plan, which is Option B (as amended, see response to questions SS11 and SS12 above). Option B would be more sustainable owing to its focus on existing main urban settlements, which already have both good access to public transport corridors and good access to other services and facilities, which Option C, with newer and small centres on the public transport network, would not have.

Comment

Representation ID: 5383

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Map 5.19
I&O_5754
Any allocation which supports only Growth Option C would detract from the most appropriate spatial strategy for the new Local Plan, which is Option B (as amended, see response to questions SS11 and SS12 above). Option B would be more sustainable owing to its focus on existing main urban settlements, which already have both good access to public transport corridors and good access to other services and facilities, which Option C, with newer and small centres on the public transport network, would not have.

Comment

Representation ID: 5386

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Map 5.20
I&O_5757
Any allocation which supports only Growth Option C would detract from the most appropriate spatial strategy for the new Local Plan, which is Option B (as amended, see response to questions SS11 and SS12 above). Option B would be more sustainable owing to its focus on existing main urban settlements, which already have both good access to public transport corridors and good access to other services and facilities, which Option C, with newer and small centres on the public transport network, would not have.

Comment

Representation ID: 5387

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Map 5.21
I&O_5758
Any allocation which supports only Growth Option C would detract from the most appropriate spatial strategy for the new Local Plan, which is Option B (as amended, see response to questions SS11 and SS12 above). Option B would be more sustainable owing to its focus on existing main urban settlements, which already have both good access to public transport corridors and good access to other services and facilities, which Option C, with newer and small centres on the public transport network, would not have.

Comment

Representation ID: 5388

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Map 5.22
I&O_5759
Any allocation which supports only Growth Option C would detract from the most appropriate spatial strategy for the new Local Plan, which is Option B (as amended, see response to questions SS11 and SS12 above). Option B would be more sustainable owing to its focus on existing main urban settlements, which already have both good access to public transport corridors and good access to other services and facilities, which Option C, with newer and small centres on the public transport network, would not have.

Comment

Representation ID: 5389

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Map 5.23
I&O_5760
Any allocation which supports only Growth Option C would detract from the most appropriate spatial strategy for the new Local Plan, which is Option B (as amended, see response to questions SS11 and SS12 above). Option B would be more sustainable owing to its focus on existing main urban settlements, which already have both good access to public transport corridors and good access to other services and facilities, which Option C, with newer and small centres on the public transport network, would not have.

Comment

Representation ID: 5390

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Map 5.24
I&O_5761
Any allocation which supports only Growth Option C would detract from the most appropriate spatial strategy for the new Local Plan, which is Option B (as amended, see response to questions SS11 and SS12 above). Option B would be more sustainable owing to its focus on existing main urban settlements, which already have both good access to public transport corridors and good access to other services and facilities, which Option C, with newer and small centres on the public transport network, would not have.

Comment

Representation ID: 5394

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy CH1
I&O_5765
In part yes, in part no, not entirely.   Yes, to support the City’s role in both the sub-region and within Cheshire West and Chester.   Not entirely in agreement, because there is some potential repetition and confusion which should be avoided. The intention is to retain the overall content of Part One Policy STRAT 3 and Part Two Policy CH1 but there is a lack of clarity on what it is intended would be retained. The last paragraph of STRAT3 does not need to be retained in draft policy CH1 because it would overlap with a later section set out in draft policy CH1, namely that which it is proposed would contain the retention of Part Two Policies CH5 and CH6. Such repetition and potential for conflict or confusion should be avoided.