Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 9756

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10252
Registered Providers will tell you that Affordable Housing is more easily managed in clusters and in urban areas and that single units in rural areas are difficult to manage. It therefore makes little sense to have a lower threshold in rural areas and certainly not one lower than 5 units (as suggested in NPPF65). The draft Section 157 designation should apply across the entire rural area be this open countryside or Green Belt and not discriminate and create a two-tier rural housing system. The types of Affordable Housing should be identified as including First Homes, Low-Cost Discount for Sale, Shared Ownership, Social Rented, etc.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9757

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10254
DM19 : needs amending as few sites in the rural area meet the Brownfield Register threshold; many sites may not have access to public transport (see NPPF 110) and the bar is set too high by Criterion 7 and allows far too much subjectivity to creep into decision making. DM21 : there is no rational reason why extension/alterations and replacement dwellings cannot and should not be allowed to be any less than 40% GEA/volume be they in the urban area, open countryside or the Green Belt – allowing homeowners to extend and stay in their homes with growing households should be supported not penalised due to postcode. DM22 : should be amended as the “criterion bar” is set far higher for conversions that are located in the open countryside that it is for Green Belt conversions that are subject to NPPF criterion.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9758

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10255
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9759

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10256
Yes – although guidance on scale would be helpful – noting here that registered providers struggle to be interested in and/or face challenges in managing stock upon very small rural sites


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9760

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10257
To all settlements regardless of size


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9761

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10258
Yes - as recognised by NPPF82


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9762

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10259
No – the policy should remove the wording “potentially requiring provision on larger residential sites”.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9763

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10260
No – this is not appropriate as it would tie large scale allocations to the delivery of a product that is unknown and uncontrolled


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9764

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10261
Evidence is needed to justify the demand otherwise the Authority is simply going to attract more uncontrolled and unsustainable camps from outside of the Borough – for instance if the housing need is 29,000 this equates to 232 pitches


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9765

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10262
No and R2 could be deleted. R2 was a “reaction” policy to an overwhelming demand at a point in time due to intense pressure placed upon the settlement by speculative developments. Tattenhall is not a special case. However, it is important to recognise that the plans overarching spatial and sustainable development polices recognise the demands placed upon all rural settlements and the need to deliver sustainable levels of development that maintain and enhance sustainability.


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