Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 1894

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

I&O_2006
Agreed. This makes more sense than rigid adherence to settlement boundaries and focussing upon sites outside of the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 2626

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS1
I&O_2779
The increase in housing numbers is meant to be a minimum requirement. Planning for a higher level of delivery will ensure that the plan is robust.

Comment

Representation ID: 2631

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS2
I&O_2784
The Council should not consider a stepped approach. National policy is promoting significantly boosting housing growth now. To achieve this, the support of Council’s in delivery through their emerging Local Plans is essential.

Comment

Representation ID: 2632

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS4
I&O_2785
Over reliance on directing new development and allocating land, towards previously developed sites within settlements raises concerns regarding the ability to deliver the required housing numbers in the short to medium term due to issues such as contamination and infrastructure capacity. In addition to larger scale developments as “urban extensions”, consideration should be given to smaller scale extensions to villages with facilities (e.g. Weaverham) as a means of achieving a greater spread of housing across the District and ensuring delivery is more robust.

Comment

Representation ID: 2633

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS5
I&O_2786
Additional settlements with facilities need to be listed within the policy, e.g. Weaverham. It is noted that the settlement hierarchy refers specifically to “Northwich (main town)”. This ignores the potential for development in and around settlements such as Weaverham where there is a good range of facilities to cater for everyday needs. If Northwich main town is being considered in isolation to its surrounding settlements, then these other settlements with facilities should be specifically listed within the hierarchy on the same basis as Cuddington and Sandiway; Farndon; Helsby; Kelsall; Malpas; Tarporley; Tarvin; and Tattenhall.

Comment

Representation ID: 2634

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS7
I&O_2787
Shouldn’t this be the function of Neighbourhood plans?

Comment

Representation ID: 2635

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS8
I&O_2788
Where appropriate, the opportunity should be taken to enable new development to support, enhance and expand existing services and infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 2636

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS9
I&O_2789
Clearly the position has significantly changed in terms of the required housing numbers to support national objectives of significantly boosting housing delivery. The stated increase in housing numbers is meant to be a minimum requirement. Opportunities for increasing delivery needs to be considered across all of Cheshire West, including appropriate Green Belt locations and “Grey Belt” development.

Comment

Representation ID: 2637

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS 10
I&O_2790
Greater consideration is required in terms of areas that could reasonably be released from the Green Belt to enable a greater spread of sustainable development across the District. This should take into account access to existing local facilities that need to be supported and the opportunity to support/expand the public transport network for travel to main centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 2638

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS 11
I&O_2791
None of the above options