Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 9715

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10211
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.

Comment

Representation ID: 9716

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10212
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. We do, however, see some merit in LOS2 and 3 but they do have access issues to contend with.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9717

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10213
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 and a pub, 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 9718

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10214
Yes, but it could be enhanced - Chester should be identified as the principle “driver for growth” in the Borough. Given its status and scale it ought to accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9719

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10215
No


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9720

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10216
No


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9721

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10217
Yes


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9722

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10218
Yes


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9723

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10219
Yes


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9724

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10220
Maybe, subject to what is proposed


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