Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 11755

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

I&O_12253
The proposed plan period of 15 years is supported, assuming this is 15 years from adoption; however, in order to appropriately plan for housing delivery within this period and longer term aims, further consideration is required. We have previously commented that the proposed options for growth, in particular option A, proposes growth through major extensions, which would not be suitable for delivery with the plan period due to significant infrastructure required, particularly in the case of Winsford.

Comment

Representation ID: 11758

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

I&O_12256
The proposed principles align with National policy, and we would agree with their inclusion within the Local Plan. However, in addition to the proposed principles, we believe it is necessary to include the delivery of housing as a priority. The provision of dwellings is fundamental to the Local Plan; the NPPF describes the purpose of plans to be “a framework for meeting housing needs and addressing other economic, social and environmental priorities”. It is evident therefore that the Local Plan’s primary purpose is to ensure the delivery of housing in accordance with housing need. As such, we would propose that a principle is required to ensure the delivery of housing, in appropriate locations, in order to meet local housing need, complement and support economic growth and enable local residents a choice in housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 11763

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

I&O_12261
Beck Homes agree that a percentage approach should be given to provide guidance to what is expected and needed in the borough. However, this should be a flexible approach given changing needs throughout the plan period and allow for evidence to be provided at the time of submission of an application if any deviations from mix, type or specialist housing is required. At most, a percentage approach would need to enable a range of percentages (e.g. 5-10%) to account for individual site needs and constraints. A flexible approach also requiring consideration against the Housing Needs Assessment (or any such later document) would enable sites to more accurately meet local market demands and respond to updated assessments in real time.

Comment

Representation ID: 11765

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

I&O_12263
The policy as written suggest the intention to reflect the government’s requirement for housing sites in the Green Belt to provide at least 50% affordable housing. The amount of affordable housing a scheme can provide depends on the overall viability of a project and a flexible approach is needed to take account of the circumstances of individual schemes. The approach should be justified by up-to-date evidence of need and viability tested as deliverability should not be compromised by over ambitious requirements. There is a need to identify the areas where affordable housing is most needed and take a flexible approach where need is greatest.

Comment

Representation ID: 11769

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

I&O_12267
Whilst we recognise the importance of separation distances in order to protect residential amenity and prevent overlooking, we believe that this would better be served as part of a design guide or supplementary guidance document (SPD). An SPD would enable the LPA to review appropriate separation distances across a range of locations and types of development, in order to respond to individual needs across the district.

Comment

Representation ID: 11772

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

I&O_12270
It is essential that new developments, particularly major developments, provide an appropriate level outdoor amenity space, or public open space. As with HW 3, this is something that could be progressed in detail within an outdoor amenity and open space SPD, establishing thresholds, requirements and exceptions for outdoor amenity and open space within new developments. This may include garden sizes, POS thresholds and play requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 11774

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

I&O_12272
The proposed approach requires major residential development to include provision of open space, sport and recreation in accordance with current policy DM35, and for contributions to be required for playing pitches based on additional demand. The policy will also follow a space hierarchy of: on-site, off-site, financial contribution. We agree with the policy approach to protect, manage and enhance open spaces, sport and recreational facilities, and agree with the spatial hierarchy. However, protection must be balanced with meeting housing needs. Releasing carefully chosen Green Belt land along the urban edge of settlements, such as land at School Lane, provides an opportunity to secure new and enhanced open space and recreation provision as part of a comprehensive development and provide more direct access to sport and recreation facilities to the benefit of the wider area. However, the required provisions (in line with DM35) must be reviewed and updated in accordance with a new Open Space Assessment. The most recent assessment was undertaken in 2016, covering the period to 2030. As such, the assessment does not reflect the current position, and the emerging plan will extend well over the current period. As such, the evidence base should be updated, and policy requirements reflected.

Comment

Representation ID: 11777

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

I&O_12275
As previously noted, the Open Space Study requires updating to inform the required provision of open space for new development. This approach is set out under NPPF Paragraph 103 whereby it is clearly set out that Planning policies should be based on robust and up to date (NJL Emphasis) assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities (including quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses) and opportunities for new provision. Information gained from these assessments should then be used to determine what open space, sport and recreational provision is needed, which plans should then seek to accommodate. The Playing Pitch Strategy was updated in February 2025 and as such is considered appropriate to inform the emerging Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 11779

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

I&O_12277
The proposed approach is supported, in so far as it would protect and enhance green infrastructure, biodiversity and geodiversity. However, the LNRS proposed Hedgerow section should include ‘where possible’ with regards to external hedgerow. Hedgerow boundaries may not be appropriate for a number of reasons, and so the policy must be designed to allow for flexibility where necessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 11780

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

I&O_12278
The ambition to increase tree cover within the district is supported, and where sites form part of woodland, it is reasonable to require developments to contribute to the maintenance/enhancement elsewhere if this is to be lost. The 2:1 tree replacement policy is supported as a reasonable and realistic measure.