Comment

Representation ID: 3454

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_3628
SD1 I agree in part. I do not understand why a sustainable model automatically drives release of greenbelt, which is the inference made by the allocations of Option B. I am in agreement with using the sustainability principles as a guide, and applying where validated with real world data. Using Frodsham as an example, adding several hundred homes, assuming a significant percentage will walk to the railway station and then use trains to employment zones is a great theory, but needs to be tested. How many people that currently commute by train walk to the railway station? How many of those walk at the least an equal distance to the distance between railway station and proposed development? How many use cars? How many commute to employment zones by car, and why (cost, convenience, reliability, flexibility/service frequency, capacity (available seating))?  

Comment

Representation ID: 3489

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: VELUX Company Ltd.

I&O_3663
Yes, we broadly support the suggested policy approach towards sustainable development. However, we believe it is important to strengthen the policy by incorporating additional environmental and social requirements. In particular, new developments should be required to create well-designed places that ensure adequate indoor environmental quality. This should include a competent analysis of external constraints and objectives to achieve healthy, sustainable, and resilient outcomes.

Comment

Representation ID: 3528

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3702
Rural areas have very little public transport so developing small villages is counterproductive to climate change and people require cars. The local schools are full so children have to travel, medical services stretched in nearby towns. Very little consideration of these issues is taken into consideration when planning decisions are made, Developers need to be paying for extensions on Drs and dentists, schools etc. This is not done and should be a requirement to obtain the money at the begining of any housing development.

Comment

Representation ID: 3604

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Nigel Miller

SD1
I&O_3786
I agree with the approach towards mitigating climate change

Comment

Representation ID: 3880

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4062
Little Leigh Parish Council generally supports the policy set out in SD1.

Comment

Representation ID: 3905

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Hooke

I&O_4087
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 3914

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Perry

I&O_4096
support strongly

Comment

Representation ID: 4077

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Terence Nolan

SD1
I&O_4300
To facilitate and encourage an improvement to health through walking, wheeling and cycling, developments should be avoided in areas adjacent to country parks, recreational areas, national cycleways and rural footpaths

Comment

Representation ID: 4123

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Martin Bell

I&O_4352
I agree

Comment

Representation ID: 4151

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4380
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4291

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: David Rudd

I&O_4520
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4371

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Spare

I&O_4600
Statement from Local Plan SD1 Be designed to make walking, wheeling and cycling as safe and easy as possible.  Providing for sustainable transport choices to create healthy and inclusive communities, whilst reducing the need to travel.  Avoid development in locations of high environmental value and on high-grade agricultural land ; Transport Links The great disadvantage of Davenham that is not recognised in the new Plan is the transport limitation. There is no railway station for several miles.  A new station at Gadbrook Park would be of little benefit.  There is an hourly bus service to Winsford and Crewe, but the route is very circuitous and not suitable for commuter use,   There are already frequent tailbacks of traffic into the village from the A556.  These are caused by heavy traffic flows travelling towards Chester or congestion in Kingsmead.  There is no public car park in the village, necessitating regular parking on both sides of London Road, which contributes to the chaos at busy times.  The extra volume of traffic from several hundred new houses would be intolerable and damage the quality of life and wellbeing for many of the residents who live near the centre of the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 4438

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Barnton Parish Council

I&O_4681
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4484

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Miles

I&O_4751
I agree with the points made, though public transport seems to have been overlooked as part of the strategy. The inclusion of EV chargers in new homes, while good in principal, does not guarantee that owners will not continue to use petrol or diesel vehicles, so reducing relaince on private vehicles should still remain a goal.

Comment

Representation ID: 4558

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: ellie miles

I&O_4841
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4617

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Norley Parish Council

I&O_4903
Agree with this approach which will require careful balancing of economic, social, and environmental factors

Comment

Representation ID: 4646

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona Barry

I&O_4942
SD1 The objectives are laudable but unrealistic: CWAC has a high car dependency because of unreliable public transport, and a smaller number of train and bus services provided. If there is only one train an hour to Chester people will not use it if it means they will either be late to work, or almost an hour early for work, or because the evening services keep being cancelled. At this stage, with such high housing targets, additional and improved roads are needed, including Junction 13 on the M56 to be created.

Comment

Representation ID: 4671

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Malone

I&O_4967
Yes, I broadly agree with this. One comment I would make however is to this following point: Avoid development in locations of high environmental value and on high-grade agricultural land Development should be avoided on any agricultural land first and foremost, with high-grade land completely protected and off the table. Farming and food production is vital to any sustainable community and Cheshire provides a huge amount of that. Just because land is deemed not "high-grade" does not mean it should be make immediately viable for development when other partly developed, dilapidated or brownfield areas could be used first. This hierachy may be covered in other areas I've not yet read.

Comment

Representation ID: 4707

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: victoria rigby

I&O_5016
Yes agree and to consider bus and train options to allow for more sustainable travel eg rural rides continuation for bookable journeys and charign points for electric vehcles linked to local power infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 4908

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: P Weston

I&O_5266
SD1 Agree 100%

Comment

Representation ID: 5003

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5362
Yes.

Comment

Representation ID: 5109

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Cllr Dan Marr

I&O_5473
I support these principles, and must also endorse: 1) Where developments offer wider/mass parking, EV spots should also be allocated that are publicly available to all 2) Public transport should be further considered in terms of S106 funding needs 3) Where developments border railway lines, space should be allocated for both new stations and parking for those 4) Agricultural land SHOULD NOT be lost

Comment

Representation ID: 5234

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Roger Morlidge

I&O_5598
Yes - lots of good thins in here. We should look to the future - can we incorporate hydrogen generation as a fuel source?

Comment

Representation ID: 5256

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Williams

SD1
I&O_5621
Yes, agree with suggested policy approach.   Should also include a clause to recognise that there are opportunities in rural locations to provide sustainable transport options including provision of EV charging, using planning conditions to ensure new development has EV charging available for use prior to first occupation. Some rural communities need to be supported through reasonable levels of development to support local shops, services and facilities. These rely on accessibility by people using car as there are no bus services available, including in some larger villages. Using planning conditions to require new housing to include EV charging will encourage occupiers to move towards electric vehicles, especially as the Government policy of banning any new vehicles with combustion engines comes into effect, which will be during the life time of the new local plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 5322

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy SD 1
I&O_5689
SD1 should be amended as follows, with deletion of existing text show struck out thus, new text shown underlined thus and explanations for amendments shown in parenthesis [ thus ]   Sustainable development New developments must, where relevant:   Mitigating climate change Maximise opportunities to secure significant reductions in carbon emissions through low carbon design, embodied carbon and energy consumption; Maximise opportunities to generate energy from renewable sources and to re-balance the grid through energy storage. All new buildings should include solar panels unless it can be shown that this is impractical or not viable, or it can be shown other forms of local renewable energy production, to serve the building(s) would be more appropriate .  Strategic sites should be connected to a district heat network , where one is available or where there are specific plans for one to be available . Where this is not currently feasible, new homes should be built with the necessary infrastructure in place to enable such connections to be easily integrated in the future. Opportunities should be sought to connect commercial development producing sufficient levels of waste heat, with residential development or other developments with demand for heating, where they are located within close proximity; [ Solar panels may not always be the best solution for localised energy production. Requiring strategic sites to be ‘district-heat-network-ready’ when there is no known prospect of a district heat network being available, will unnecessarily adversely effect viability, probably to the detriment of other potential planning benefits.] Be designed to make walking, wheeling and cycling as safe and easy as possible. Providing for sustainable transport choices to create healthy and inclusive communities, whilst reducing the need to travel.  Incorporating electric vehicle (EV) charging points in every new home with off-street parking, and outside new commercial developments, village halls, community facilities and services ; [ Whether or not all homes with off-street parking should be provided with an electric vehicle charging point is a matter which should be determined at a national level through either the Building Regulations or national development management planning policies, and not in a Local Plan unless specific local considerations can be demonstrated. ] Deliver high quality, interconnected and multifunctional green and blue infrastructure, which will be designed to provide sequester carbon, improve air quality and enhance biodiversity. Tree planting and or other carbon sequestering habitat types should be incorporated into new developments; and [ To provide flexibility, to allow for suitable site specific solutions. ] Maximise resource efficiency and supporting the transition to a circular economy by minimising waste, maximising the reuse of materials, and prioritising where suitable low embodied carbon materials. [ There may be numerous reasons why the product that has the lowest embodied-carbon quotient may not be suitable for a project, including cost, obtaining suitable warranties and insurance, proven technical reliability and or availability to required timescales. ]   Adapting to climate change Be designed to be resilient and adaptive to the future impacts of climate change. Schemes should minimise the risk of overheating and buildings must be able to withstand the impact of extreme conditions, such as from flooding and heat exposure , as set out in (to be confirmed) ; [ If schemes are to be assessed for whether they have, for example, minimised the risk of overheating, then there must be an established and freely available standard against which to make that assessment and to inform the design. ] Be located in accordance with the Sequential Test and the Exceptions Test (where appropriate) and have regard to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Areas at risk of flooding, both now and in future, should be avoided and development should contribute to reducing flood risk on site without exacerbating flood risk elsewhere. Natural flood management features such as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be incorporated into design of schemes and should also wherever possible provide amenity value and / or biodiversity improvements; [ To provide flexibility, to allow for suitable site specific solutions. ] Incorporate water efficiency, water recycling and rainwater harvesting measures to mitigate the impact of drought and reduce resource and associated energy consumption. [ These are matters which should be determined at a national level through either the Building Regulations or national development management planning policies, and not in a Local Plan unless specific local considerations can be demonstrated. ]   Additional environmental and social requirements Protect, enhance or improve the natural and historic environment whilst enhancing or restoring degraded and despoiled land and seeking opportunities for habitat creation; Encourage the use and redevelopment of previously developed land and buildings and minimising the development of greenfield land as much as possible; Avoid development in locations of high environmental value and on high-grade agricultural land; Ensure the delivery of enough high quality, well designed housing to meet identified needs; and Support development that achieves regeneration of the most deprived areas of the borough. [ In recognition of the housing crisis in the area – the Council should declare a ‘housing emergency’ in the same way it did a ‘climate emergency’–and because everyone has the right to be housed .] The Council will always work proactively with applicants where proposals are not in accordance with the Plan to find solutions which mean that proposals can be made sustainable and approved wherever possible.  However, proposals that fundamentally conflict with the above principles or policies within the Local Plan will be refused , unless material considerations indicate otherwise . [ In recognition of the balance to be exercised in making decisions on applications for planning permission, as set out in Planning legislation .]  

Comment

Representation ID: 5415

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5787
I agree that climate change and environmental protection must be central to sustainable development, but the suggested approach in SD 1 is incomplete. It focuses heavily on carbon reduction, design and resilience, which are all important, but it does not go far enough in addressing the everyday pressures that new development creates for local communities. At the moment, new housing is often approved without the schools, GP surgeries, hospital capacity or transport links to support it. This is not sustainable. If sustainability is to mean anything in practice, the policy must make infrastructure delivery a requirement, not an afterthought. I also believe the policy must be stronger on land use. Brownfield and previously developed land should always be used before Green Belt or high-grade agricultural land. Protecting the Green Belt must be written in clearly as part of sustainable development. Once it is lost, it is lost forever, and building on it damages both the environment and the character of Cheshire West. Another missing element is community impact. Sustainable development should protect the quality of life of existing residents as well as provide for new ones. Issues like traffic, air pollution and child safety on the school run are not addressed strongly enough. If parents feel roads are unsafe, they will drive their children to school, which in turn adds even more traffic and emissions. This is a real issue locally that needs to be reflected in the policy. Finally, developer promises need to be included in the definition of sustainability. Too often facilities promised at the planning stage are delayed, reduced, or never delivered. The policy should make it clear that commitments must be legally binding, monitored, and delivered in a way that benefits both new and existing communities. In short, the policy should be amended to: Require infrastructure (schools, GP capacity, hospitals, transport) to be in place or guaranteed before housing is approved. Make brownfield-first development and Green Belt protection firm requirements. Address community health, safety and air quality directly, not just indirectly. Ensure that developer commitments are enforceable and delivered in full. With these changes, SD 1 would provide a real framework for sustainable development. Without them, there is a risk it will look strong on climate change but weak on protecting communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 5431

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Constabulary

I&O_5803
I would like to see a comment which looks to promote safe design, safer communtities etc, as this would help to reduce the 'carbon cost of crime' which links in well policy approach outlined.

Comment

Representation ID: 5584

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robin Gwyn

Q SD 1
I&O_5956
Agreed.

Comment

Representation ID: 5668

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Nigel Speirs

I&O_6040
In principle. However, with a focus on protecting the green belt and ensuring all brownfield sites are developing first. And existing resources such as park and ride sites which are under utilized, be developed. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5673

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rowe

I&O_6045
Brownfield sites , land that is considered to be scrubland and land with the lowest agriculural value should be given the greater weight when trying to match Housing and Employment needs. The Green Belt should remain intact.