Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 9735

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10231
No – retaining and not amending DM19 is a mistake for the following reasons: • Few sites in the rural area meet the Brownfield Register threshold • Many sites may not have access to public transport (see NPPF 110) • The bar is set too high by Criterion 7 in DM19 not to lead to a high degree of subjectivity creeping in • NPPF provides overarching guidance and any policy must reflect Grey Belt guidance in this and the PPG


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9736

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10232
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9737

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10233
Employment, tourism, recreation and residential uses are (and can be) appropriate alternative uses in the countryside


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9738

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10234
No


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9739

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10235
Through a sensibly worded policy that seeks to protect heritage assets and recognise that structural tests may be relevant and design solutions are sympathetic as opposed to being obstructive


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9740

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10236
No – the section on “rail lines and station” considers that the premise is to re-open and extend such facilities – yet it is quite possible that such consideration is simply nether viable or sustainable – for instance a small rural station being expanded is likely to benefit only a handful of residents whose ambition is simply to commute to Manchester or Liverpool as opposed to using the network internally and it pre-supposes that if it were to become a node for housing growth that there exists sufficient other community and enviro-engineering infrastructure capable of supporting and sustaining new development


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9741

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10237
It’s a fair approach but needs to reflect NPPF110 in recognising that not all sites are accessible urban-centric ones


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9742

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10238
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9743

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10239
To a degree – however, the policy for this and other related contribution policies need to be integrated and joined up. Communities are rightly concerned that when new development comes along that it is sustainable in delivering the infrastructure needed to support it. Often capacity exists but this is overlooked by many. However, perceived and real pressures upon infrastructure clearly exist and it is important that where there is a requirement this is provided. The fact is that development cannot always fund affordable housing, POS, BNG, CIL and a host of other commuted sums and enviro-engineering infrastructure and there may be occasions where this is accepted and that the delivery of growth can introduce viability issues. The Policy needs to be flexible and enable staircasing for affordable housing. Notwithstanding this, with all things considered, the site being promoted here can, we believe, accommodate a sustainable and viable development. The most appropriate mechanism would be through direct contributions and/or CIL subject to viability. However, where spatial growth ambitions are being advanced (through the Local Plan) it is important that the providers of utilities (power, water, etc), health, education, transport and other agencies actually engage and ensure their capital programmes are tailored to meet future development needs. It is not the role of the planning system to address shortfalls in the provision of staff in key public services. Planning conditions and obligations can only be used to secure physical infrastructure where there is evidence that this is necessary to adequately accommodate additional demand arising from a particular development. Where there are “gaps” these should be identified in an IDP and this is where the Policies of CIL and the Local Plan can combine to secure the necessary contributions.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9744

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10240
No - the fact is that it should be a requirement for applicants to make provision, through planning obligations and commensurate with the scale of development, for infrastructure to be provided where existing capacity would not meet the additional demands and needs of new development, subject to viability. However, CIL captures all development – small and large; yet thresholds are generally applied for Affordable Housing and POS – at what level they are applied and sought is down to thresholds and percentages being applied through Policy. There is an argument that exemptions for all contributions should be put in place for individual applicants where the scheme is 2 or less dwelling units.


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