Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 15602

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16161
However, it may be unfeasible to rely solely on non-Green Belt sites, given the significant development needs of the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 15604

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16163
No.

Comment

Representation ID: 15613

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16172
Option B recognises that larger areas of Green Belt and/or countryside is likely to be needed in comparison to the current Local Plan – which Shropshire Homes agree with and fully support. For housing development, it includes: • Large urban extensions around: Chester; Ellesemere Port; Northwich and Winsford. Accompanying Map 5.2 indicates 5,000 + homes in Chester, Ellesemere Port and Northwich. • Total Green Belt release of sites to deliver 11,000 homes. • Relatively limited development in Cuddington and Sandiway; Farndon; Frodsham; Helsby; Kelsall; Malpas; Neston and Parkgate; Tarporley; Tarvin; and Tattenhall of 3,000 homes in total. Map 5.2 indicates up to 500 homes in these settlements. • 2,500 homes across the rest of the rural area, including both Green Belt and non Green Belt land. Shropshire Homes are generally supportive of the general principles of Option B – particularly the need for non-green belt allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 15631

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16190
Option C would see new homes focused in and around settlements on the railway network, and on main bus route corridors (based on those routes with a bus service of at least one per hour). The following is then stated: For housing development, it includes: • A more distributed pattern of development. • More modest urban extensions around: Chester; Ellesmere Port; Northwich; and Winsford • Smaller settlements with a rail station, such as: Cuddington and Sandiway; Helsby; Frodsham; and Neston and Parkgate would take a bigger role in accommodating development. • Total Green Belt release of sites to deliver more than 12,000 homes. • Potential for further development in the rural area and in places along bus corridors including: Farndon; Malpas; Tarporley; Tarvin; and Tattenhall. • Potential for an enhanced role around rural rail stations including: Acton Bridge; Capenhurst; Delamere; Elton; Hooton; Lostock Gralam; and Mouldsworth. The Planning Inspectorate recently hosted a webinar3 entitled ‘what is meant by a sustainable location?’. Key points of note include reiterating the fact that walking and cycling are at the top of the sustainable transport hierarchy, followed by public transport. Whilst public transport connectivity/corridors are clearly important, it should not be the sole focus. Instead, the site selection process for each settlement should also heavily focus on a site’s location and its pedestrian and cycle connectivity to existing local amenities (shops, schools etc), which all reduce car trips on a day to day basis. Public transport is clearly helpful for longer distance trips but has to be considered alongside the aim to reduce day to day trips to local facilities. Shropshire Homes consider Option C should be altered to focus on a wider approach to sustainability (remembering that walking and cycling are at the top of the sustainable travel hierarchy, not public transport). We highlight the following key points in this respect: • Covid has changed travel patterns, with working from home practices now the norm. Walking and cycling to local amenities is becoming even more important in this context, with less every day reliance on public transport for trips further afield. • The aforementioned PINS webinar highlights that improvements to pedestrian routes is the key/top priority to make meaningful modal shift changes. • The PINS webinar also highlights the importance of context – high frequency bus routes are not always realistic/feasible in smaller settlements. It is Shropshire Homes’ view that this alone does not make a development unsustainable – a site’s pedestrian and cycle connectivity to local amenities is equally, in fact more, important. • NPPF paragraph 110 also recognises the above – noting that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making. In light of the above, and in line with NPPF paragraph 83 which notes how planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, option c needs to be widened to focus on sustainability in a more holistic manner. Growth should not just be focused near high frequency public transport corridors and railway stations – as this alone will not make meaningful headway in achieving a genuine modal shift to sustainable travel modes. Section 5.1 of the consultation paper notes how it may be necessary to identify new areas or broad locations for development if not enough land can be identified within settlements. A series of maps of potential growth areas on the edge of the city, main towns, market towns and larger villages are then presented – which we comment on further in subsequent chapters of this Representation.

Comment

Representation ID: 15718

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16277
No particular comments in respect of those listed at paragraph 5.12, other than some elements (such as flood risk) just need careful consideration in respect of master planning and how development is delivered on site.

Comment

Representation ID: 15719

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16278
Sites must be demonstrated to be developable and deliverable, as well as available and suitable for the development proposed, such as the residential development of Shropshire Home’s Malpas site. This will ensure that the Plan is in line with the NPPF definitions and PPG Guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 15720

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16279
Shropshire Homes are supportive of this policy approach. The draft policy states that current Local Plan policy STRAT 9 may need to be updated if required to set out the approach to grey belt and to reflect Green Belt review evidence in terms of overall approach and to inset areas/washed over settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 15721

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16280
Shropshire Homes support the statement that new development will be encouraged in more sustainable locations, recognising that the approach to transport will vary depending on site location. Indeed, we address this in more detail under question SS 19, noting how approaches will vary depending on location and spatial option C has an overdependence on a focus towards higher frequency bus corridors and proximity to railway stations. The draft policy then notes that developments and places should maximise any opportunities for people to be able to meet their regular day to day needs within a reasonable (10 minute/800 metres) walking distance of their homes, as well as being able to travel outside of their settlements by a range of sustainable travel choices. Well established guidance, namely the Chartered Institution for Highways and Transportation (CIHT) document entitled ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’ suggests walking distances outlined below. Noting the above preferred maximum distances, it is considered that more flexibility is required when determining sustainability matters, and that 800m should not represent an acceptable/reasonable upper limit. Notwithstanding our general comments above, Shropshire Homes’ site in Malpas is an sustainable site, noting its compliance with the Council’s approach of a high frequency bus corridor, but also that the Malpas high street (which contains a range of shops and services) is 300 metres to its northwest.

Comment

Representation ID: 15722

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16281
It is important that any infrastructure/developer contributions are appropriately allowed for, and duly considered, in respect of viability testing. The local plan must be supported by a robust evidence base – including a Viability Assessment at the early stages of the plan making process. It will also be important to ensure no overlapping with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) already in force in the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 15723

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16282
Any developer contributions must meet the planning obligation tests set out at NPPF paragraph 58: a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) Directly related to the development; and c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.