Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 15197

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15756
We note that Policy SS 5 refers to the examiner’s report into the Local Plan (Part One) in 2015, which concluded that: “additional release of Green Belt land around Chester would have a significant adverse effect on the purposes of including land within the Green Belt including to the historic setting, and that the amended Green Belt boundary proposed was capable of enduring and would not need to be altered at the end of the plan period (2030).” 6.41. As noted above in the response to SS 9, circumstances have changed significantly since 2015, with a 75% increase to the housing requirement in the authority area; and wider changes to the NPPF that include the introduction of ‘Grey Belt’ land, which must be consider in respect of Green Belt release in the emerging Local Plan. 6.42. The introduction of Grey Belt policy in the December 2024 NPPF is reflective of national government’s commitment to tackle the housing crisis. Green/grey belt land will play a critical role in delivering this aim. In short, for a site to be considered Grey Belt, it must not strongly contribute to purposes a), b) or d) of the Green Belt, the latter of which relates to ‘preserving the setting and special character of historic towns’. Whilst other criteria/tests also need to be satisfied in order to be considered Grey Belt, it is clear that a balanced view needs to be taken, which is moving away from the blanket protection of all Green Belt land. The change in approach is also reflected at NPPF paragraph 148 in respect of plan-making: “Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations. However, when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should determine whether a site’s location is appropriate with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework” 6.43. CW&C must carefully consider the Grey Belt tests when preparing the Local Plan, particularly in respect of growth around Chester, given this is the principal settlement in the authority area, and this will require a balanced and nuanced judgment in respect of purpose d) in particular. 6.44. In short, it is our strong view that the above changes in Green Belt policy, and the substantial housing requirements, justify Green Belt release and supersede/ override the previous Inspector’s position that Chester’s Green Belt boundary would not need to be altered at the end of the current plan period (2030).

Comment

Representation ID: 15198

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15757
We do not support any of these options in isolation, please see response to SS 12 below. We note the HBF also agree that no option will be suitable in isolation – suggesting that positive elements of each approach should be taken forward, including supporting the vitality of smaller settlements, but also supporting the development of land within or adjacent to the larger settlements where developments are likely to be more sustainable.

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 15199

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15758
Barratt Redrow consider a hybrid of Options B and C will provide the most appropriate/ sustainable approach in respect of the spatial distribution of development. We have already noted under question SS 9 that Option A is not appropriate. Barratt Redrow advocate a hybrid option which would follow the general distribution from the current Local Plan but also take account of the revised settlement hierarchy – as set out at Policy SS 4. It would also incorporate the general ethos of Option C, however; should be site-led and widened to focus on sustainability and accessibility in the round, including Active Travel, instead of being solely focused on sustainable transport corridors. Indeed, the Planning Inspectorate recently hosted a webinar6 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 it’s 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. This highlights the issue with Option C’s overreliance/focus on public transport, as although places like Delamere and Mouldsworth have train stations, they do not have primary schools which are a key focus of day to day trips. This therefore does not represent a balanced approach to sustainability, which is more nuanced and multi-faceted. It is considered a hybrid option of Option B and C is the most appropriate spatial strategy because: It would still facilitate the brownfield first approach to development, as enshrined in national policy, across the authority area; It would deliver both non Green Belt and Green Belt sites in the most sustainable locations; It would result in a more even spatial distribution across settlements, and not lead to an over-concentration of development in certain locations. This will deliver a number of benefits, including variety of choice and tackling affordability issues across the Borough; Would reflect recent changes in Green Belt policy, specifically Grey Belt, and the key role Green Belt sites will play in delivering development requirements; and Is settlement capacity and site led, which will provide the most sustainable and suitable spatial distribution of development for the Borough. 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTKYHTffS80

Comment

Representation ID: 15200

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15759
Please see our response to question SS 6 and SS 8 confirming our general support for development in smaller settlements where capacity exists, including Willaston, and the land at Mill Lane site, which we have demonstrated to be a suitable and sustainable site that will infill and round off of the existing settlement, and should be considered for allocation in the emerging plan on this basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 15201

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15760
No, we reiterate that Option A will not meet CW&C’s emerging development requirements and would result in uneven and unsustainable development patterns, by concentrating all growth outside the Green Belt and away from the authority area’s largest and most sustainable settlements (including Chester and Northwich).

Comment

Representation ID: 15202

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15761
No, we think it should be removed entirely, and that the plan should focus on a hybrid of Options B & C as noted.

Comment

Representation ID: 15203

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15762
Option B recognises that larger areas of Green Belt and/or countryside are likely to be needed in comparison to the current Local Plan, which Barratt Redrow fully support. For housing development it includes: Large urban extensions around: Chester; Ellesmere Port; Northwich and Winsford. Accompanying Map 5.2 indicates 5,000 + homes in Chester, Ellesmere Port and Northwich. Total Green Belt release of sites to deliver 11,000 homes. 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. Barratt Redrow is supportive of the general principles of Option B, particularly the need for both non Green Belt and Green Belt allocations and urban extensions around Chester. However; as explained under question SS 12, Barratt Redrow advocate a hybrid approach combining elements of Options B & C. Willaston should also be identified as a Key Service Centre, as justified under question SS 5.

Comment

Representation ID: 15204

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15763
Option B recognises that larger areas of Green Belt and/or countryside are likely to be needed in comparison to the current Local Plan, which Barratt Redrow fully support. For housing development it includes: Large urban extensions around: Chester; Ellesmere Port; Northwich and Winsford. Accompanying Map 5.2 indicates 5,000 + homes in Chester, Ellesmere Port and Northwich. Total Green Belt release of sites to deliver 11,000 homes. 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. Barratt Redrow is supportive of the general principles of Option B, particularly the need for both non Green Belt and Green Belt allocations and urban extensions around Chester. However; as explained under question SS 12, Barratt Redrow advocate a hybrid approach combining elements of Options B & C. Willaston should also be identified as a Key Service Centre, as justified under question SS 5.

Comment

Representation ID: 15205

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15764
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). 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. As highlighted under question SS 12, Barratt Redrow advocates a hybrid approach which would combine elements of spatial Options B and C. In respect of Option C, this should be amended to focus on overall sustainability, in recognition that walking and cycling (i.e. Active Travel) are at the top of the sustainable travel hierarchy, above public transport). We highlight the following key points in this respect: Covid has changed travel patterns, with working from home increasingly becoming the norm. Walking and cycling to local amenities is becoming even more important in this context, with less day to day reliance on public transport for longer distance. 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 Barratt Redrow’s view that this does not make a development unsustainable with a site’s pedestrian and cycle connectivity to local amenities being 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 be solely focused on high frequency public transport corridors and railway stations, as this alone will not achieve genuine modal shift to sustainable travel modes. Proximity to other day to day local amenities, including schools, is equally important.  

Comment

Representation ID: 15206

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15765
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). 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. As highlighted under question SS 12, Barratt Redrow advocates a hybrid approach which would combine elements of spatial Options B and C. In respect of Option C, this should be amended to focus on overall sustainability, in recognition that walking and cycling (i.e. Active Travel) are at the top of the sustainable travel hierarchy, above public transport). We highlight the following key points in this respect: Covid has changed travel patterns, with working from home increasingly becoming the norm. Walking and cycling to local amenities is becoming even more important in this context, with less day to day reliance on public transport for longer distance. 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 Barratt Redrow’s view that this does not make a development unsustainable with a site’s pedestrian and cycle connectivity to local amenities being 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 be solely focused on high frequency public transport corridors and railway stations, as this alone will not achieve genuine modal shift to sustainable travel modes. Proximity to other day to day local amenities, including schools, is equally important.