Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 9664

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10160
Re: Sibbersfield Lane, Farndon 1.16 - We consider only a variation of OPTION B will deliver the most meaningful, logical and sustainable growth and delivery strategy for the Borough; the reasons of this will be presented in our answers that follow and we set out our alternative OPTION D below. 1.17 However, there is a recognition that rural communities must also provide an “uptick” and deliver infrastructure. There are over 6,000 on the housing waiting list and an increasing number reliant upon being housed in temporary accommodation. These households cannot wait for a Local Plan to deliver aspirational housing number solutions, they need housing solutions now. There is a need to address this acute and critical housing needs across the open market and affordable housing sectors along with delivery of essential infrastructure and attracting investment to deliver economic growth and jobs. 1.18 The opportunity therefore exists for the Local Plan Review to take a more progressive, balanced and proportionate approach to sustainable growth - one that offers to recalibrate and deliver greater relative sustainability to not just the Major or Key Service Centre settlements but also the Local Service Centres too. 1.19 However, the emerging plan will need to follow the direction set out in NPPF and adhere to the “Duty to Co-operate” and part of this will be the need to recognise that there has effectively been a complete collapse of housing delivery in the adjacent districts of Wrexham, Wirral and Shropshire over the past 20 years. 1.20 This submission urges a need for co-operation and there now being consideration of CWACC taking up the slack in delivering extra growth. It has proven that it is capable of delivery over the past/current 2010 to 2030 plan period and the level of delivery achieved indicates that it has capacity for additional growth. [See attachment para 1.21-1.23 tables and suggestion for Option D on housing growth and spatial distribution.] 1.24 This largely adopts the revised settlement hierarchy that is presented under SS4 but presents them in logical groupings and the only fundamental change is that Christleton moves up a tier – it benefits from a host of support services including Primary and Secondary schools and for this reason alone must be considered much more than just a Local Service Centre. 1.25 We consider that these amendments would allow the emerging plan to be found “sound” and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these with Officers. [See NPPF context attached para 2.1]


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9665

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10161
Yes Additional evidence may usefully include an assessment of Agricultural Land Quality + Waste & Minerals capacity/resource to understand other constraints to land release.


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9666

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10162
A 20-year plan period may be more effective in response to the advice provided in NPPF22, particularly given the need to review Green Belt boundaries.


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9667

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10163
Largely yes, but there is a lack of positive ambition and the Authority should be aiming higher and mentioning things like seeking to be “best in class, first rate destination, heritage assets, economic driver, investment, growth”


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9668

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10164
Yes – such as sustaining all settlements and delivering jobs, homes and infrastructure


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9669

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10165
The Vision should not discriminate and should apply to the whole Brough not solely and exclusively the “key places”


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9670

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10166
Neither of these
Neither of these
None of these
Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9671

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10167
Yes – combine such ambitions with the “Vision” because both Options start to compete with the “Vision” and are at risk of simply being lost and becoming a distraction to the real purpose of the plan which is “delivery”. Both offer mixed messages and overlap with the “Vision” so why not simply combine and focus in on “delivery”; indeed the “long list “ of Option B all beg the question as to how they can be achieved as they come across as “casual aspirations”.


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9672

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10168
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9673

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10169
Without compelling the utility companies to engage in the solution it is impossible to expect applicants to deliver solutions on their own – this needs a joined up approach and all sectors have a role to play to achieve this ambition


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.