Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 5417

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy WI 2
I&O_5789
Yes, to support employment growth over the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 5419

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy GB1 and paragraph 13.2
I&O_5791
No because the policy should defer completely to national policy on the green belt. There are no local circumstances to suggest a different approach. For example, there is no apparent need to repeat or add to policy on grey belt within the green belt.   In addition, the Key Issues set out in paragraph 13.2 display confusion over the purpose of the green belt. The second bullet point refers to protecting the quality of the environment. While this might align with recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, it does not accord with the five purposes green belt serves as set out in paragraph 143 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This error should not be repeated in future Local Plan documents. The fifth bullet point refers to countryside and this presumably is all countryside, including that in the green belt. The statement contradicts itself because any development in the countryside will have the effect of harming rural character and urbanising the countryside. The statement in bullet five is confusing and unhelpful and should not be repeated in future Local Plan documents.

Comment

Representation ID: 5422

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy GB1
I&O_5794
Yes, it would be better to separate out policy on development in the green belt from policy on development in the countryside; and to deal with landscape quality under a separate policy. Currently, the approach taken by the Council unhelpfully conflates spatial and environmental protection policies.   Further clarity or guidance is also required on what it is the Council thinks it is setting out to protect when it speaks of ‘rural character’.

Comment

Representation ID: 5424

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy GB1
I&O_5796
Renewable energy, because at scale there is nowhere else it can be located.

Comment

Representation ID: 5427

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy GB1
I&O_5799
No, the policy should defer to national planning policy on the green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 5429

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy TA1
I&O_5801
It should be amended but it is recognised there is a difficulty here in that the government has yet to explain what it means by the term ‘a vision-led approach’. Hopefully this will be published in time to inform further work by the Council. In the meantime, care is needed over the approach to accessibility. It should be recognised that it will not always be possible for everywhere to be within a 10 minute / 800 metre walk of all facilities needed to meet regular day to day needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 5436

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

I&O_5808
If you do, the policy should not include reference to ‘wheeling’ and ‘riding’ because it is not clear what legal and lawful equipment developers would be expected to design for; or at the very least provide clarification. Mixing powered wheeled modes of travel with pedestrians and non-powered modes of transport, can give rise to the risk of or fear of collision.

Comment

Representation ID: 5437

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy TA2
I&O_5809
Yes, T2 (A56 Hoole Road Corridor / Park-and-Ride site), should be retained.

Comment

Representation ID: 5441

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy TA2
I&O_5813
Yes, the Chester Millennium Greenway should be added to the list of recreational routeways.

Comment

Representation ID: 5443

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy ID 1
I&O_5815
No. Some flexibility must be possible where viability may be affected, and because the range of matters that might be covered under the heading of infrastructure may include items which are essential and some which are discretionary.