Comment

Representation ID: 8797

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9290
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 8934

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9427
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 9196

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9689
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 9391

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9886
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 9558

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10053
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 9672

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10168
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 9790

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: SA, and SJ Arden, J C Coombs and J Hand

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10287
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 9947

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Rosemary Hollingsbee

SD1
I&O_10444
SD1 and SD2. Neston Community energy has been trying to set up a scheme to introduce solar panels to the Clayhill Industrial estate in Neston and there has been a suggestion by Neston Community energy that the mine workings under the sea at Little Neston could be used as a district heat network. I don’t know how feasible the latter would be but please contact them at nestoncommunityenergy@gmail.com for details

Comment

Representation ID: 10021

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Horizon Cremation (Hooton) Ltd

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_10518
Yes, we broadly agree with the suggested policy approach towards sustainable development. The proposed criteria strike a strong balance between environmental responsibility, resilience to climate change, and social inclusion. However, we recommend that the policy also explicitly recognises that sustainable development can occur on well-located Green Belt sites, particularly where they are adjacent to existing settlements, such as Land off Hooton Road. Sustainable development may, in some cases, include land currently within the Green Belt where clear evidence demonstrates that such development would meet long-term requirements, and climate objectives in a manner consistent with national and local sustainability principles.

Comment

Representation ID: 10230

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Agent: Avison Young

LAA ref 1403
I&O_10727
Overall, the DIO are supportive of draft Policy SD 1 (Sustainable Development) as it is reflective of national planning policy in regard to mitigating and adapting for climate change. It is however noted that it is important to ensure flexibility within the policy as not all forms of renewable energy or other climate changes measures are suitable on all sites. It is also important to ensure that the policy is not over onerous to ensure that development is still viable.

Comment

Representation ID: 10286

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Westminster Park Residents Association

I&O_10783
We support the approach set out in SD 1, however we would like to comment regarding transport.  At the consultation stage of the Wrexham Road Development in 2017, the transport study suggested that new residents would largely rely on walking, wheeling and cycling as their preferred mode of transport.  This is not the case as many residents are employed many miles away from their homes, the infrastructure promised has not yet been delivered and therefore many car journeys are being made to schools and shops and no account has been taken of the proliferation of deliveries of online purchases.  We disagreed with the transport study at the time and we still disagree with it.  Will realistic transport studies be made to assess the environmental impact of new developments?

Comment

Representation ID: 10429

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Susan & Stephen Britton

I&O_10927
We support the approach set out in SD 1, however we would like to comment regarding transport.  At the consultation stage of the Wrexham Road Development in 2017, the transport study suggested that new residents would largely rely on walking, wheeling and cycling as their preferred mode of transport.  This is not the case as many residents are employed many miles away from their homes, the infrastructure promised has not yet been delivered and therefore many car journeys are being made to schools and shops and no account has been taken of the proliferation of deliveries of online purchases.  We disagreed with the transport study at the time and we still disagree with it.  Will realistic transport studies be made to assess the environmental impact of new developments? 

Comment

Representation ID: 10553

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Damon Leonard

I&O_11051
Partialy. points 1 and 2 are overly simplistic, point 3 is correct but relies on who's definition of 'best land' we use.We should be protecting land from developers who's only interest is their profit margin, new clean land means more profit.

Comment

Representation ID: 10555

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Damon Leonard

I&O_11053
Yes. Just because a new labour government has hoodwinked the electorate into voting for a system that by it's own admission will ignore the wishes of local communities doesnt mean that our local politicians should not stand up for their local communities

Comment

Representation ID: 10769

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_11267
Yes, Hayfield Homes broadly agrees with the suggested policy approach towards sustainable development. The proposed criteria strike a strong balance between environmental responsibility, resilience to climate change, and social inclusion. However, we recommend that the policy also explicitly recognises that sustainable development can occur on well-located Green Belt sites, particularly where they are in proximity to existing urban or commercial areas, such as the site Land off Church Street, Higher Wincham. Sustainable development may, in some cases, include land currently within the Green Belt where clear evidence demonstrates that such development would meet long-term housing and climate objectives in a manner consistent with national and local sustainability principles.

Comment

Representation ID: 10856

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs . Hall

Agent: Urban Imprint Limited

I&O_11354
Our client supports the LPA’s commitment to addressing climate change through policy, however, the policy as written may be too specific, with many of the policy criteria cross-referencing to matters which are appropriately covered elsewhere in the plan – this is particularly the case with the ‘Additional environmental and social requirements’. The policy is a mix of strategic policy and specific policy requirements. The LPA are reminded that the development plan should be read as a whole, and it would seem more appropriate if this policy simply focussed on climate change and climate adaptation.

Comment

Representation ID: 10926

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11424
Yes, this approach is supported by the Council.

Comment

Representation ID: 11074

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tata Chemicals Europe Limited

Agent: Axis

I&O_11572
TCEL are generally supportive of the suggested policy approach set out in Policy SD 1. However, the policy could be strengthened to more closely reflect national policy regarding energy infrastructure and emissions targets. Part 1 should be amended to explicitly reference the use of carbon capture technologies and the aim of achieving net zero emissions. Part 2 should be updated to include the generation of energy from renewable and low-carbon sources, ensuring that new developments actively contribute to the transition to a low-carbon economy while supporting the wider national and local energy strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 11275

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Town Council

I&O_11773
It doesn’t go far enough, only very poor agricultural land should be considered for development

Comment

Representation ID: 11498

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_11996
CPRE agrees with the suggested approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 11862

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Peel Ports Group Limited

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_12361
Alongside amendments to specific policies, in order to ensure the Canal’s role is woven throughout the Local Plan, references should be added under: • Economy & Employment policies (recognising the Canal as critical infrastructure supporting investment and job creation). • Transport & Infrastructure policies (positioning the Canal as part of the sustainable transport hierarchy). • Climate Change policies (highlighting modal shift from road to waterborne freight as a key decarbonisation measure). 3.24. Suggested general wording that could be used within the vision and/or objectives section of these policy areas within the emerging Local Plan could be as follows: “The Local Plan recognises the Manchester Ship Canal as a nationally significant piece of infrastructure and a strategic economic asset for Cheshire West and Chester. The Canal will be safeguarded and enhanced to ensure its continued role in supporting the local economy, delivering sustainable freight transport, and contributing to carbon reduction and supply chain resilience.”

Comment

Representation ID: 11902

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tarporley Parish Council

I&O_12416
Tarporley Parish Council supports the principles outlined for sustainable development. However, where new development takes place these principles need to be extended to benefit existing development. For example, there is little benefit for a new development to be designed to encourage walking, wheeling and cycling if this is not extended throughout Tarporley linking with existing developments and services, footpaths and cycleways. As see previous comment regarding biodiversity net gain (OB1).

Comment

Representation ID: 11974

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Lyon

I&O_12488
Sustainable Development (SD 1) I support sustainable development principles, but these need to have a focus on the social/environmental. The triple bottom line has not been implemented by CWaC - too much emphasis on developer led development.  There have been unrealistic transport assumptions in past studies (e.g., Wrexham Road). See above re travel from and into King's Moat. People are not walking, cycling etc. from the estate as outlined in the previous plans.  Realistic transport studies that reflect actual commuting and delivery patterns needed- this is imperative. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12000

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Welsh Water

I&O_12514
We are pleased that both SD1 ‘Sustainable Development’ and FW 1 ‘Flood risk and water management’, in conjunction with the Council’s Surface water management and SuDS guidance, highlight the importance of incorporating Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) into the design of schemes.  In addition, we welcome the approach to amend Policy DM 41 to remove reference to the requirement for SuDS on major development sites only.  Managing surface water in a sustainable manner protects the environment, minimises pollution from surface water runoff and assists in ensuring that there is sufficient capacity available in the public sewerage network for foul-only sewage flows arising from development sites.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12402

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12919
Mitigating Climate change, point 1 should be amended to include a viability / practicality mechanism. It would be detrimental to the delivery of some sites to require low carbon design, embodied carbon and energy consumption measures where not viable or feasible. Point 2 states “Strategic sites should be connected to a district heat network. 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.” A viability / practicality mechanism should be incorporated into this. It may be too onerous for some sites to deliver such infrastructure, particularly where there is no prospect of the district heat source coming forward in the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 12711

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Alexandra Parkin

I&O_13229
Yes I agree, but some of the sites proposed in the local plan for housing do not meet this approach. Some sites are being proposed where sustainable transport options are not adequate, without also outlining what improvements will be made to meet the new developments needs.  It is the same for active travel, some sites have been placed in areas where active travel will only be available for the few (people used to cycling or walking many miles to hubs or work etc) but the 'everyperson' is not being considered.  Good Travel Planning needs to be undertaken prior to these sites getting to the planning stage. Transport is not an after thought it is an everyday occurrence which needs to be at the centre of plans - as it feeds into health, financial concerns, work life balance, community, accessibility and so much more. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13029

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Bulmer

SD 1
I&O_13548
Yes I agree, but some of the sites proposed for housing do not meet this approach, as sustainable transport options are not adequate, or only available for a few people. As mentioned above, travel planning needs to be undertaken prior to these sites being zoned for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 13087

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Dzelzainis

I&O_13606
Suggested Policy Priorities for the New Local Plan To ensure that development is both sustainable and proportionate, I urge the Council to adopt the following clear priority order for allocating new housing: Brownfield land – within and adjoining existing settlements. Locations with existing employment opportunities and public transport links, to reduce commuting by car. Proportionate growth in settlements, scaled to their size, role, and infrastructure capacity, so that villages and smaller towns are not overwhelmed. This approach would deliver housing while: Meeting Local Plan objectives on sustainability (STRAT 1, STRAT 2). Aligning with NPPF Para. 8 (economic, social and environmental sustainability). Supporting the Council’s Climate Emergency Response Plan (2023) by safeguarding farmland, reducing car dependency, and protecting carbon sinks.

Comment

Representation ID: 13128

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Network Rail

I&O_13647
Local Plan OB 1 (Objectives) notes the following two alternative options for the new Local Plan: • Option A – Take forward the current Local Plan objectives; or • Option B – Use the Sustainability Appraisal objectives. In relation to Option A, Local Plan objective SO4 notes the importance of reliable and efficient transport networks that support growth and accessibility to jobs. Local Plan objective S05 goes on to require that all development should be supported by or contribute towards improvements in infrastructure. With regards to Option B, criterion 22 from the Sustainability Appraisal is of most direct relevance to transport networks and railway infrastructure. This requires that development makes the best use of existing transport infrastructure and ensure everyone has access to high quality and affordable public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure. Draft Policy SD 1 sets out the various sustainable development elements that new development must provide for in relation to mitigating climate change, adapting to climate change and additional environmental and social requirements. Under the heading of mitigating climate change, criterion 3 requires that new development must, where relevant: “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.” Network Rail supports the above Strategic Objectives (SO4, SO5, and 22) and Policy SD1 but also requests that specific recognition is given in these to the importance of the railway transport system as part of sustainable growth, including the provision of necessary improvements through private sector investment alongside investment by bodies such as Network Rail. There will be circumstances where transport infrastructure requires enhancements, improvements, and new additions to support sustainable growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 13208

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Forest

I&O_13727
Tackling Climate Change and Sustainable Development: The Local Plan's vision includes "Tackling climate change" and states that "Sustainability is a core theme of the new plan". Policy approach SD 1 includes mitigating climate change through low-carbon design and green/blue infrastructure, and adapting to climate change through flood-resilient design. Our own plan's principle to "Establish trees, woods, and other habitats" aims to increase tree cover across Cheshire and Merseyside to 15% by 2050 from a 2025 baseline of 13.7%. Aiming to increase tree cover can contribute to the delivery of this wider ambition. The Local Plan's Policy approach GI 1 also sets out an approach to combine current policies to safeguard and enhance biodiversity, geodiversity, and green infrastructure, with specific reference to tree cover.