Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Support

Representation ID: 16490

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7298
we strongly agree with the principle of directing new development and allocating land towards previously developed sites within settlements first, as they are the most sustainable locations with best access to services and facilities

Support

Representation ID: 16491

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7309
we believe that the hierarchy should have larger settlements as the priority for development. We have reservations however about the degree of sustainable development considered acceptable for smaller settlements such as ours which have lower level of services and access to public transport. We agree that any development in smaller settlements should be appropriate in scale and design to conserve that settlements' character and setting, and should not exceed the capacity of existing services and infrastructure unless the required improvements can be made.

Object

Representation ID: 16492

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7311
No, we do not agree with this. As stated above, any development in smaller settlements must be proportionate

Support

Representation ID: 16493

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7314
Policies need to be truly place-based and take into account the views and needs of the residents. Any development in smaller settlements should be appropriate in scale and design to conserve that settlements' character and setting, and should not exceed the capacity of existing services and infrastructure unless the required improvements can be made. Furthermore, the impact of development in areas surrounding these settlements also needs to be considered (e.g. public transport links, road infrastructure for residents and commutes, active transport provision, etc)

Support

Representation ID: 16494

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7316
we strongly agree with this principle.

Support

Representation ID: 16495

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7320
While in favour of retaining green belt, Option A would include growth around Tarporley. We are concerned that this would put pressure on local infrastructure and be inconsistent with the principle of conserving settlements' character and setting, and not exceeding the capacity of existing services and infrastructure.

Option B appears to be a more measured growth plan for areas that surround our rural parish and therefore seems more appropriate, despite some new development being in green belt (2500 homes across rural areas). This approach can be supported by option C.

Support

Representation ID: 16496

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7322
as above in our response to SS11, we have concerns about unsustainable development of neighbouring areas, particularly Tarporley and the potential impact on infrastructure (particularly roads) of the 10,000+ new homes proposed for Winsford and 5000+ new homes proposed for Northwich.

Support

Representation ID: 16497

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7326
this option has a more measured growth plan for areas that surround our rural parish and therefore seems more appropriate, despite some new development being in green belt (2500 homes across rural areas).

Object

Representation ID: 16498

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7328
Sustainable transport corridors should be key in any development, and we feel it isn't 'either/or' option. Focusing just on this option would run the risk of suburban sprawl, but we feel that a sensible distribution as in option B with sustainable transport links as a key feature is desirable, with development priority given to existing and new transport links. There is an opportunity to reopen a viable Tarporley railway station at Beeston for example.

Object

Representation ID: 16499

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7331
as a neighbouring parish, we are concerned about the impact of potentially 500-1000 new homes on infrastructure, but in particular for this question in relation to roads, transport and parking. Tarporley is already near capacity for access and parking. The impact of additional proposed growth areas of TARP01 and TARP02 on Eaton Lane and Royal Lane would be significant. TARP03, TARP04 and TARP05 are therefore most suitable with links to the A49.