Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 11127

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11625
Here is the response from Waverton Parish Council (WPC). The main sources of evidence we have used are as follows: WPC residents and traffic surveys since 2016 and most recently from the c.100 people who came to the WPC Extraordinary Meeting on 18 th August 2025. From the Chester Green Belt Alliance (CGBA), formed in July 2025 comprising Rowton, Christleton, Littleton, Great Boughton, Mickle Trafford, Guilden Sutton and Waverton Parish Councils, to provide a shared place with a robust set of responses to the current stage of the Local Plan - Regulation 18 Evidence base provided by CWAC The Shared Place referred to in our response to VI 3 includes 7 key and 15+ local service centres. Most of these parish councils have neighbourhood plans (NPs). These NPs provide a wealth of data, evidence and insight that can underpin and inform a future vison. Neighbourhood Plans provide scope for, inter alia, detailed local housing needs studies, drawing on community knowledge to identify genuine need and acceptable sites. Christleton and Littleton Parish Councils have recently demonstrated this through their NP. Once local needs are defined, sites can be allocated through the NP process. Where NPs are adopted or advanced, their policies and allocations should carry strong weight and be fully reflected in the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 11128

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11626
We agree with the principles. However, the Places listed only represent the main towns and Chester and do not include the Rural Areas. Given the changes to the NPPF, the vision should explicitly include the rural areas too. Please see our responses VI2 and VI3 that suggests how this could be done.

Comment

Representation ID: 11129

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11627
Should the vision include/establish a set of principles and priorities? Yes Are these the right ones – do you have any other suggestions?  No -see our response Question VI 3

Comment

Representation ID: 11130

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11628
We agree with the approach of concise visions in principle  Or do you have an alternative suggestion?  Answer. Yes The concise visions need to cover the distinct rural areas to ensure the approach is more inclusive to compliment the urban towns and city listed above by reflecting the vision of people living in Shared Places of a similar size. There is a Shared Place defined by the parish councils immediately to the East and South of Chester -those adjoined to or enclosed by the A51 and A41 towards the centre of the Sandstone Ridge -that has a population of c.50,000 people, putting it above the places listed in this question, except Chester & Ellesmere Port. The communities in this Place share common strategic challenges and opportunities for example, in: 2021 c.25 + parish councils in CWAC expressed interest to fund and install an average speed camera scheme within their parishes. 2025 Tattenhall, Christleton and Waverton Parish Councils secured funding for a feasibility study with the Canal & Rivers Trust on the proposed Shropshire Union Canal towpath extension from Waverton to Tattenhall. The long-term aspiration is to connect Chester to Beeston Castle . The response to question IN6 above sets out how this Place could generate a clear and locally distinctive vision

Comment

Representation ID: 11131

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11629
Answer. -Retain Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11132

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11630
WPC supports the importance and value of the Green Belt in sustaining the separate identity of Waverton from its neighbouring villages and the City of Chester. The Local Plan Part One is the most recent review of the Green Belt and it states further release around Chester would have ‘a significant adverse effect on the purposes of including land within the Green Belt’. Green Belt is one of the most widely understood planning policies. The housing and infrastructure development in Waverton, between 1960 and 1980 was at the northern edge of the Parish on the boundary with the parishes of Rowton and Christleton. As a result, the population increase 3-fold and it led to shops, a GP surgery, extensive community facilities/organizations and a national cycle path along the Shropshire Union canal. CWAC classed this built-up area as a core part of a designated Local Service Centre with some housing in Rowton and Christleton. ‘Old Waverton’ on the southern boundary of the Parish was classed as a Conservation area. The remaining land is farmed and owned by the Eaton Estate in the Green Belt. Whilst the population has been static over the last 20 years, there has been growth in people using these facilities and services, such as the Crocky Trail and Eaton GC. The current Green Belt position is central to ensuring that there is a sustainable balance for residents, those living  adjacent to the parish and visitors from further afield. The 2024 WPC survey of residents reflects a strong sense of community pride and commitment to maintaining Waverton’s rural charm while addressing evolving challenges to enhance the quality of life. The main challenge from the survey continues to be traffic and road safety, particularly arising from the A41 . Frequent delays on the section of road from Waverton to the Sainsburys roundabout cause excessive and at times dangerous use by drivers using the local roads through Waverton, Rowton and Christleton . The conclusion from our 2024 traffic survey was that the PC should develop an Average Speed Camera scheme, informed by the results from the pilot sites in Helsby and Plumley in 2027. The residents survey gives qualitative evidence that most people do not favour significant development. We will carry out a residents’ survey into the future Housing Needs and the use of greenbelt in 2025 to provide quantitative evidence. These views were endorsed by c.100 people who came to the WPC Extraordinary Meeting on 18 th August 2025.About 75 % of attendees were residents, with the balance from neighbouring parishes. One of the attendees proposed a ‘show of hands’ on the 3 options. The overwhelming response was Option A retain the Green Belt. The CWAC Land Availability & Assessment report includes a proposal from Eaton Estate to extend the Waverton Business Park and for land to develop 200 houses. This site is between Common Lane and the Shropshire Union Canal i.e. on Green Belt between the Waverton Local Service Centre and the Waverton Conservation Area. Based on the evidence in the three paragraphs above, we conclude that the proposal for land to develop 200 houses, would have a major adverse impact on the current existing sustainable balance for residents, neighbouring parishes and visitors.

Comment

Representation ID: 11133

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11631
Answer No.  Option B is not sustainable . It would require Green Belt release for around 11,000 homes, replicating weaknesses of the current strategy while ignoring new environmental, economic, and demographic realities, including the climate crisis. Development in the Green Belt would promote development that is not sustainable and with limited public transport and access to services would just promote more car use. This option will increase systemic congestion, pollution, and poor air quality for example on the roads south of Chester at the Sainsburys hamburger roundabout , increasing the frequent tailbacks to Waverton on the A41, causing excessive traffic on local roads. It entrenches peripheral sprawl, sacrificing valuable agricultural and biodiverse land instead of unlocking regeneration opportunities in Ellesmere Port, Winsford, and other urban areas. It sets a damaging precedent for further Green Belt loss and fosters car dependency by locating housing far from employment and transport hubs. Option B also weakens incentives for brownfield delivery, undermining both national guidance and the Council’s regeneration ambitions. Under this option developers would deliver the Green Belt sites first and then may not be interested in bringing forward the more complex brownfield sites, which are more sustainable and can promote urban regeneration. In addition, it is likely to encourage speculative development applications, because once Gren Belt release is established it becomes harder to resist further encroachment. Developer contributions would be thinly spread, resulting in partial infrastructure improvements, while new communities are likely to become dormitory suburbs with inadequate services.

Comment

Representation ID: 11134

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11632
Answer No.  Option C presents itself as sustainable but in practice requires the largest Green Belt release - over 12,000 homes - and would not be sustainable in terms of the resulting pattern of development, undermining its own claims. Development along corridors does not guarantee reduced car use, especially where sites lack safe walking and cycling links or frequent public transport services. Many sites will not be located close to stations or lack safe walking and cycling infrastructure and have limited public transport especially outside of peak hours. Its dispersed growth model dilutes infrastructure funding, leads to ribbon development, and risks merging distinct settlements for example if the potential sites listed by the boundaries of Waverton, Christleton and Rowton at and near the A41 were developed it would become a continuous built-up area from Waverton to the Sainsburys roundabout. The environmental costs include habitat loss, flood risk, and loss of high-quality farmland. Economically, corridor dispersal undermines town centre regeneration and risks funnelling residents into long commutes and low levels of sustainability. This would result in substantial economic costs based on the DfT TAG analysis, which should be a key consideration in developing a sustainable local plan. Without guaranteed major investment in transport (which is extremely unlikely), Option C would lock in car dependency for decades. Measured against sustainability and climate objectives, it is the least defensible strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 11135

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11633
We are confident that sufficient brownfield and urban regeneration, along with non-Green Belt land capacity, exists to avoid any Green Belt release and secure the required growth. Identifying this will require further work. The Wirral Local Plan demonstrates this approach is both deliverable and defensible at Local Plan Examination. This strategy is more sustainable and tackles inequalities by focusing investment on struggling communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 11136

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11634
None of the identified growth areas around Chester or the potential sites identified in the Land Availability Assessment – Stage 1 report identified in Waverton are suitable. All have substantial flaws as outlined in our answer to Question SS 24.