Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 3378

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

I&O_3552
The new local plan should, in accordance with national policy, cover a period of at least 15 years post its adoption date.

Comment

Representation ID: 3379

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

I&O_3553
Objective SO10 says that the general extent of the Cheshire green belt will be maintained. Whilst this may be possible, the overriding aim must be to ensure that local housing need is met in full and it is likely, if not inevitable, that this will require significant changes to the general extent of the current GB across the Borough. This objective therefore should be revised to reflect the chosen spatial option for the sustainable growth of the Borough, and cross refer to this, by adding the following words (or similar) …” commensurate with ensuring housing and other development needs are met across the Plan’s area”.

Comment

Representation ID: 3381

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

I&O_3555
No. The Plan should meet local housing needs, as calculated by the 2024 Standard Method, in full.

Comment

Representation ID: 3382

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

I&O_3556
No. The Plan needs to be ambitious and ensure that housing needs are addressed urgently, given the relative unaffordability of homes across many parts of the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 3383

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

I&O_3557
Yes. It is clear that there will be a need for significant new housing allocations to meet needs. This will involve some green belt sites. The chosen sites should be focussed on the edge of existing settlements, be well related to existing built form, be capable of accessing (and supporting) local services, and with a reasonable public transport profile and good active travel connections. All these matters should be proportionate to the size and function of the settlement, recognising (as the NPPF does) that public transport will be less available in settlements within the rural area than in the major towns or cities.

Comment

Representation ID: 3396

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

I&O_3570
We broadly agree with the settlement hierarchy in SS4. However, this also says: "It is recognised that smaller settlements which have a lower level of services and access to public transport could acceptably accommodate infill development and small previously developed sites to meet local needs." We do not agree that in smaller settlements in the Borough development ought to be limited to infill development and small previously developed sites, as the above implies. Even in smaller settlements, and especially where there is reasonable/good connectivity through public transport, active travel modes and proximity to local services, development of a proportionate scale on well-located greenfield sites (including green belt where necessary) can be appropriate and should be encouraged. Such settlements will be capable of meeting a proportion of the Borough’s needs, and to limit this to infill sites or the capacity of previously developed land is to constrain the growth of such settlements when such growth can have a valuable and positive role to play in the future sustainability of the settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 3397

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

I&O_3571
Broadly speaking yes, for the reasons set out above.

Comment

Representation ID: 3398

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

I&O_3572
We agree that, as a general principle, the existing character of settlements should be protected. It is important however not to conflate “protect character” with “no change”. Accommodating any new development will involve change, but this should not be equated with harm. A balanced approach is required. We suspect that in many parts of the Borough it will be felt that the capacity of existing services and infrastructure has already reached “capacity”. Thus if this measure was applied as set out in SS8 above, it would be impossible to accommodate the required level of growth over the 15 year Plan period. Rather than using existing capacity as a restraint and choke on future growth requirements therefore, the Borough should instead adopt a proactive and enabling role, working with partners to secure the delivery of enhanced services and infrastructure so that current availability of essential infrastructure does not act as an artificial bar to meeting future needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 3399

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

I&O_3573
Self evidently yes. The Government's changes in NPPF 2024 to the calculation of housing needs, the introduction of “grey belt” as a concept and the other major revisions to national Green Belt policy demand a fresh approach, and a comprehensive reassessment of the extent of Green Belt across CWaC. This should include the boundaries of the Green Belt and the policy applicable to development within the remaining designation.

Comment

Representation ID: 3401

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

I&O_3575
CWaC will wish to take into account the definition of grey belt and the mandatory obligation now placed upon it to meet housing needs as calculated in line with the latest methodology.