Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 15177

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15736
Paragraph 1.19 of the consultation paper confirms that the Council consider the following additional evidence will be required in support of the Local Plan: Retail and Town Centres Study (in preparation) Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (in preparation) Gypsy Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) (in preparation) Housing Needs Assessment (to be prepared) Green Belt Study (to be prepared) Infrastructure Delivery Plan (to be prepared) Strategic Viability Assessment (to be prepared) Transport Assessment (to be prepared) Land Availability Assessment (in preparation) Barratt Redrow fully support the list above, in particular the Green Belt Study. As set out throughout these representations, it is clear from the Issues and Options Paper and wider evidence base that Green Belt release will be required in order to meet emerging development requirements, therefore early preparation of a Green Belt Study is supported and welcomed. It is also important that this Study is comprehensive in its scope and considers Green Belt across the authority area, rather than just around Chester, as the previous Green Belt Study did in 2013, in support of the current adopted plan. The Housing Needs Assessment, Strategic Viability Assessment and Land Availability Assessment are also critical to the emerging strategy for housing delivery, and therefore we would expect these to have progressed/ been published by the time of the next consultation stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 15178

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15737
It will be critical for the monitoring framework within the plan to closely monitor housing land supply at regular intervals. NPPF paragraph 34 is clear that policies in local plans should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years. Due to CW&C’s significant housing requirements (which as a minimum will comprise the local housing need figure of 1,928 dwellings per annum 1), it is important for housing delivery to be regularly monitored and appropriate trigger points inserted into the monitoring framework in respect of a potential early Local Plan Review. We reserve the right to comment on this matter further as the Local Plan progresses and the evidence base in respect of land supply and proposed allocations becomes available. 1 Latest calculation as a result of latest affordability ratios (published March 2025) and housing stock data (published May 2025).

Comment

Representation ID: 15179

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15738
At paragraph 1.23, it is noted that the Council think that the updated Local Plan should plan for a period of 15 years. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF notes that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption. NPPF paragraph 22 also states that where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years) to take into account the likely timescale for delivery. A range of site sizes will be required in order to meet housing requirements, ranging from small, medium to larger sites. The Local Plan should therefore consider extending beyond the minimum 15-year period, potentially to 20 years as per the current Local Plan, to help ensure plan-led development on larger sites across the main settlements of Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Winsford.

Comment

Representation ID: 15180

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15739
At Table 5.2, the SA contains a high-level assessment of spatial options A, B and C against key objectives – which score the same against all objectives, with the following (not all) notable exceptions: Option A (Retain the Green Belt) scores worse (amber) than the other two options (green) in respect of ‘infrastructure – reducing the need to travel and encouraging sustainable modes of transport’. Options B (current LP level and distribution) and C (sustainable transport corridors) score worse (red) in respect of conserving and enhancing the historic environment objective. The red scoring relates to Green Belt release in Chester – which we respond to in more detail under Question SS 10. Options B & C score better than option A under climate change and reduction of air pollution objectives. As we explain throughout these representations, it is considered that a hybrid approach will be required in order to sustainably meet housing requirements. No spatial option in isolation will be sufficient, and a dispersed spatial strategy (both Green Belt and non-Green Belt options) will be required across the Borough. Clearly, the SA also takes a very high-level approach, when in reality, development and allocations should be settlement capacity and site-led, to deliver the best and most suitable options for development across the plan area. In respect of the settlement specific policies (Chester - CH 1, Northwich - NO 1 etc) assessed in the SA, we do not have any particular comments to make at this stage, given  allocations have not yet been formally identified or assessed. Due to the early stage of the Local Plan making process, we note the SA (and Consultation Paper) at this stage only refer to delivery of a minimum of 1,914 dwellings per annum. As required at NPPF paragraph 36, Local Plans must be justified – taking into account reasonable alternatives. One such alternative will be to explore a higher growth option which is higher than the standard method figure, which is a minimum starting point 2. 2 NPPF paragraph 62 states: To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning practice guidance. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.

Comment

Representation ID: 15181

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15740
No comments at this early stage, in the absence of site-specific assessments, but we reserve the right to make further comments as the Local Plan progresses and more detailed HRA assessments are published.

Comment

Representation ID: 15182

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15741
Barratt Redrow is supportive of the Neighbourhood Plan process and the role it plays in delivering community led development, however it is important to note that Neighbourhood Plans should not promote less development than set out in strategic policies for the area, or undermine those strategic policies. In light of this, and the increased development needs in the emerging Local Plan, all current Neighbourhood Plans within CW&C will need to be reviewed and updated to ensure they do not undermine the delivery of this growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 15183

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15742
Barratt Redrow believe that the overarching principles must include reference to meeting current and future development needs including the delivery of market and affordable housing of all types, as this is a critical issue within Cheshire West and is also critical to delivery of the other principles listed, most notably ‘promoting wellbeing’ and ‘providing infrastructure’.

Comment

Representation ID: 15184

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15743
Barratt Redrow believe that the overarching principles must include reference to meeting current and future development needs including the delivery of market and affordable housing of all types, as this is a critical issue within Cheshire West and is also critical to delivery of the other principles listed, most notably ‘promoting wellbeing’ and ‘providing infrastructure’.

Comment

Representation ID: 15185

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15744
Barratt Redrow has no issue in principle with establishing concise visions for each of the key places identified, as long as these are not overly prescriptive and include a level of flexibility, and we reserve the right to make further comments once these visions are drafted. To ensure no unnecessary delays and to avoid any potential delivery concerns, it is considered that Developers who are promoting land in these key places should be consulted on the visions as part of the Local Plan process.

Comment

Representation ID: 15186

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15745
In respect of the objectives, we support the HBF position that whilst the Council may take inspiration from the objectives of the current Local Plan and the Sustainability Appraisal, that it should prepare objectives specific to this Plan, that address the issues and challenges that are current in Cheshire West, including acute housing need as noted above.