Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 15868

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

I&O_16427
BDW considers that developer contributions should be proportionate and directly related to the scale and type of development proposed. While it is appropriate for the majority of infrastructure contributions to be secured from major developments, there may be circumstances where smaller developments have a cumulative impact on infrastructure and should contribute accordingly—provided this is justified, reasonable, and does not undermine viability. The definition of 'major development' should align with the existing national definition set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. This provides clarity and consistency across local authorities. Any local variation to this definition should be clearly justified by evidence and tested through the Local Plan process. Flexibility should also be retained to ensure that contributions are only sought where they meet the statutory tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (‘CIL’) Regulations 2010 (as amended), particularly in terms of necessity, and direct relationship to the development.

Comment

Representation ID: 15869

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

I&O_16428
BDW acknowledges that it is appropriate for developers to contribute to the infrastructure necessary to make their developments acceptable in planning terms. However, such contributions must be fair, proportionate, and aligned with the statutory tests set out in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended), and paragraph 58 of the NPPF. BDW emphasises the importance of a collaborative and coordinated approach between the Council and developers. Infrastructure planning should be based on an understanding of the cumulative impact of committed and planned development across the area, rather than being addressed in isolation on a site-by-site basis. This ensures that infrastructure is strategically planned, appropriately phased, and capable of supporting both current and future needs. Requiring individual developers to meet the full cost of infrastructure in isolation risks undermining the viability and deliverability of schemes, particularly where the infrastructure serves a wider area or multiple developments. In such cases, the cost burden should be shared equitably, with consideration given to funding mechanisms such as Section 106 agreements, the CIL, or other public funding sources where appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 15870

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

I&O_16429
BDW supports a pragmatic and flexible approach to infrastructure delivery, particularly where viability is a recognised constraint. The Local Plan should establish clear priorities for infrastructure provision, informed by robust evidence such as an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), viability assessments, and engagement with infrastructure providers. Where viability issues arise, the Plan should identify which infrastructure types are considered critical to support development (e.g. education, transport, utilities) and which are desirable but secondary. This prioritisation should be clearly set out and agreed through plan-making to provide transparency and certainty for both developers and the local authority. A settlement-by-settlement approach may be appropriate where infrastructure pressures vary significantly across the borough. This would enable a more locally responsive strategy that reflects the scale of growth, existing infrastructure capacity, and site-specific constraints in each area. The Local Plan should continue to support a flexible, collaborative approach to negotiations on planning obligations, allowing for site-specific viability to be taken into account. Where full contributions are not achievable, policies should allow for openbook viability assessments and a transparent process for considering trade-offs, such as deferral, phasing, or the use of review mechanisms to secure contributions over time.

Comment

Representation ID: 15871

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

I&O_16430
BDW supports the principle of delivering a range and choice of homes that meet local needs, which is informed by up-to-date evidence, agrees that the emerging Local Plan should promote a mix of house types, sizes, and tenures to ensure choice for homebuyers and respond to demographic and market trends. However, it is essential that any housing mix policy provides flexibility and is not overly prescriptive, to avoid impeding housing delivery. Policies should allow for changing market demands over time and between local areas. In addition, housing mix requirements should take into account the scale and characteristics of individual sites, with flexibility to depart from a fixed mix where justified—particularly where site constraints or viability considerations indicate that an alternative approach would be more appropriate. The Council suggest that, if justified by evidence, a new policy will be brought in to require compliance with Nationally Described Space Standards (“NDSS”). UK Government has made clear that the NDSS are intended to be optional and should only be introduced where there is a clear need for them and they retain development viability. The evidence required to justify NDSS policies is set out within PPG, which includes evidencing need, viability and timing. BDW will provide further comment once the necessary evidence is made available for consultation.

Comment

Representation ID: 15872

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

I&O_16431
A percentage policy approach is overly restrictive, failing to allow for changes in market conditions which may occur in different parts of the borough and/or over the lifetime of the Local Plan and changes in site specific circumstances. It is important that the policy remains flexible, and the Council’s requested housing mix should be informed by a regularly updated HNA which reflects evolving market conditions and local needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 15873

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

I&O_16432
The Council is proposing to set out the percentage of affordable housing required across the borough including potentially by sub-area, for development sites of 10 or more dwellings (in designated rural areas it will be three or more dwellings). The policy will reflect the Government’s requirement, as set out at paragraph 67 of the NPPF, for housing sites in the Green Belt to provide at least 50% affordable housing. BDW reiterate that the requirement for 50% affordable provide relates to sites released from the Green Belt, and this level of provision should not be required for sites outside of the Green Belt. BDW considers that it is appropriate for the Council to plan for the affordable needs of its community, and to ensure that it does this in line with the requirements of paragraph 35 and 64-66 of the NPPF. Paragraph 67 of the NPPF confirms that, as part of the ‘Golden Rules,’ specific affordable housing requirements should be established for major housing developments—whether on land proposed for release from the Green Belt or on land within the Green Belt where development may be permitted. For land released from the Green Belt, a minimum affordable housing provision of 50% is required. However, the NPPF policy also allows flexibility for development to be except should this requirement make the scheme unviable. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF goes on to state that “the affordable housing requirement for land within or released from the Green Belt may be set at a single rate or be set at differential rates, subject to meeting the criteria of the Golden Rules.” As such, in accordance with national policy, the Council’s affordable housing requirements should be clearly set out and evidenced as viable through a Viability Appraisal. BDW also recommends that flexibility is embedded within the policy to ensure that affordable housing provision responds to local needs data and viability on a case-by-case basis. 

Comment

Representation ID: 15874

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

I&O_16433
As explained above, BDW does not consider Option A to be an appropriate spatial strategy, as it fails to include any release of Green Belt land. Such release is a necessary component to meet the borough’s housing needs. This is supported by the Council’s own evidence base on land availability, which identifies a potential capacity of approximately 11,000 homes. As noted above (paragraph 3.25), there is insufficient land within the urban area to accommodate the minimum requirement of 28,290 dwellings over a 15-year plan period, or 38,560 dwellings over a 20-year period. Consequently, additional housing land must be identified beyond the existing settlement boundary, including land currently designated as countryside or Green Belt. While BDW are generally supportive of Option B, which identifies significant Green Belt release around Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Chester, it is noted that larger settlements such as Neston and Frodsham will have a relatively limited level of new development compared to their size, transport connections and services. In particular, as Frodsham now has an elevated status in the settlement hierarchy as a ‘market town’, a proportionate level of growth should be assigned to Frodsham, as opposed to relying upon the previous level of distribution. Option C seeks to direct development in and around locations which offer sustainable transport connections. This will require Green Belt release around more settlements and would introduce more development in some of the smaller settlements including Hooton, Capenhurst, Elton, Acton Bridge and Mouldsworth. A review the approach to locations for development in Option C identifies that, whilst the sites may be sustainable in respect of their proximity to a rural train station, many of the proposed locations are limited in terms of their access to essential services and facilities such as schools and healthcare. BDW therefore urges the Council to exercise caution in prioritising transport hubs as the primary basis for new development. A more balanced, holistic approach to assessing site sustainability is recommended. Under Option A/B, Frodsham is identified to accommodate up to 500 homes, whereas Option C proposes a significantly higher level of growth, ranging from 1,500 to 3,000 homes. The Dig Lane site (ref. FRO03) is included as a potential growth option for housing development in Frodsham in both Options B and C. Option A involves no Green Belt release around Frodsham. 3.50 As such, BDW recommend that the Council adopt a hybrid approach between Options B and C; one that recognises the strategic role of larger settlements such as Frodsham, while ensuring that sustainable considerations extend beyond transport accessibility alone. Further detail on this approach is outlined within Chapter 6 of the Pegasus representations.

Comment

Representation ID: 15875

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

I&O_16434
The policy approach for HO3 seeks to adopt the same approach as Local Plan Part Two (‘LPP2’) Policy DM19, whether this be retained as a separate policy, or the general policies incorporated into other policies in the new Local Plan. LPP2 Policies DM21 and DM22 are proposed for retention, with only minor amendments. LPP2 Policy DM19 relates to proposals for residential development on land not allocated for development, such as on sites within the countryside or Green Belt. It is reiterated that the policy’s approach is fully consistent with the latest iteration of the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 82-83 which address rural housing needs and sustainable development in rural areas. It is noted that the current wording of Policy DM19 replicates LPP1 Policies STRAT 1, STRAT 9 AND SOC2. BDW urges caution in duplicating policy content within the Local Plan. Development Management policies should provide additional clarity and implementational detail to guide decision-making, rather than restate strategic policy objectives already set out elsewhere in the plan. For this reason, it is suggested that the general policies are incorporated into other policies in the new Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 15877

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

I&O_16436
The policy approach for HO3 seeks to adopt the same approach as Local Plan Part Two (‘LPP2’) Policy DM19, whether this be retained as a separate policy, or the general policies incorporated into other policies in the new Local Plan. LPP2 Policies DM21 and DM22 are proposed for retention, with only minor amendments. LPP2 Policy DM19 relates to proposals for residential development on land not allocated for development, such as on sites within the countryside or Green Belt. It is reiterated that the policy’s approach is fully consistent with the latest iteration of the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 82-83 which address rural housing needs and sustainable development in rural areas. It is noted that the current wording of Policy DM19 replicates LPP1 Policies STRAT 1, STRAT 9 AND SOC2. BDW urges caution in duplicating policy content within the Local Plan. Development Management policies should provide additional clarity and implementational detail to guide decision-making, rather than restate strategic policy objectives already set out elsewhere in the plan. For this reason, it is suggested that the general policies are incorporated into other policies in the new Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 15878

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

I&O_16437
BDW are in general agreement with the policy approach to open space, sport and recreation. It is noted that the policy approach seeks to requires all major development to make provision for open space in accordance with the current open space quantity and accessibility standards and onsite thresholds as set out in the current LPP2 Policy DM35, including that all forms of residential development should make provision for open space. However, BDW recommends that the standards underpinning the policy be reviewed and informed by up-to-date, robust evidence that is specifically prepared to support the new Local Plan. In addition, it is important that the policy allows for a degree of flexibility in its application. This is to ensure that the requirement to deliver specific types of open space does not unduly impact development viability or the ability to bring forward sustainable, deliverable housing schemes—particularly where certain typologies of open space may not be appropriate or necessary in all contexts.