Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 9705

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10201
FROD1 and 2 suffers from poor access and comprises quality BMV FROD3 appears the most logical


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9706

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10202
HEL1 and 3 appear the most logical fits HEL2 suffers from access issues


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9707

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10203
KEL02 is the most logical fit; it comprises land that is readily accessed off the main Chester Road and is close to all services and facilities – it benefits from strong defensible barriers (A54) and development on most sides KEL01, despite being open countryside (and not Green Belt) actually is more poorly located and would result in all highway and other impacts being felt throughout the village; moreover its landscape quality is more sensitive than KEL02


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9708

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10204
MAl1 and MAL5 are the best options as they are the least constrained by access MAL2, 3 and 4 all suffer from quite extreme access constraints; and MAL3 would have impacts upon the Conservation Area and also perhaps presents the greatest landscape and visual impact of all options


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9709

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10205
NEP3 , 4 and 5 are the most logical locations NEP1 and 6 are more remote to the core of the settlement and less logical with more constraints associated with accessibility


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9710

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10206
TARP1may struggle to provide good access solutions TARP2 feels the most logical fit TARP3, 4 and 5 all suffer from access issues and would have the greatest impact upon the historic village core


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9711

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10207
TARV3 offers logical infill TARV2 feels the next most logical fit TARV1 would break the A54 boundary


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9712

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10208
Totally unsustainable for anything coming forward that exceeds the suggested growth we have suggested for Local Service Centres – we recognise it has a rail station but this does not justify developing anything of scale and substance in a community that has just a pub and a tennis club. Its proximity to Weaverham and Northwich, which are better suited to delivering growth, means any new residents here would be having to rely upon those services and outcommuting to Manchester.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9713

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10209
Largely unsustainable for anything coming forward that exceeds the suggested growth we have suggested for Local Service Centres – we recognise it has a rail station, school and pub but this does not justify developing anything of scale and substance.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9714

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10210
Totally unsustainable for anything coming forward that exceeds the suggested growth we have suggested for Local Service Centres – we recognise it has a rail station but this does not justify developing anything of scale and substance in a community that has no other support services and facilities.


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