Comment

Representation ID: 14694

Received: 08/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs I Morris

I&O_15244
Having been born in this parish of Weaverham I am deeply concerned about the removal of the green belt. It would ruin what is left of our village . Having seen many changes in  my little village over the last 77 years .building on our green belt areas would ruin the area completely. So I vote A. Keep all green belt areas. No amount of money coming into the councils pockets is worth the destruction of our village.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14698

Received: 02/09/2025

Respondent: Darnhall Parish Council

I&O_15248
In examining these options, Darnhall Parish Council has referred to the attached Appendix 1 (Draft Spatial Strategy Options). These show the following: - That Option A would mean additional development in Darnhall Options B and C would mean additional development but at a lower level than Option A The distribution of new housing in the Dranhall area Having examined these options, Darnhall Parish Council wishes to support Option B for the following reasons: - The options reflect discussions at Parish Council meetings and also discussions involving members of the public Option B delivers the ambitions set out in the Local Plan in a strategic sense Housing is distributed more fairly throughout the borough as a whole The options builds on the existing Local Plan In coming to the conclusion outlined above, Darnhall Parish Council has taken into account the points set out in the Local Plan documents issued to date and has also taken soundings of public opinion.

Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 14723

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Craig Goodwin

I&O_15273
I choose Option A: Retaining Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14752

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: The Smith Family

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_15302
As set out in the following response, we believe an alternative spatial option should be explored. (see attachment)

Comment

Representation ID: 14774

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: United Utilities Property Services

Agent: Lichfields

I&O_15325
UUPS is supportive of Options B and C which prioritise development in sustainable locations and don’t restrict development in locations within the Green Belt which are otherwise logical and sustainable, such as Land at Beach Road. The Framework makes provisions for the release of Green Belt land where this is required to meet identified housing needs (Paragraph 146), and so it is considered illogical to prevent this possibility when it could result in sustainable housing growth. Much of the borough, particularly in the north, is constrained by Green Belt, despite many sites being located on the edge of main towns or other sustainable settlements. Preventing housing development on all Green Belt land would, therefore, greatly restrict the borough’s development potential. Option A is not supported by UUPS on this basis. Map 5.6 within the LPIO document shows the potential growth areas around Northwich. Several sites are identified for housing development, including sites to the south and west of Hartford (NOR08 and NOR09). UUPS supports the principle of housing growth around Northwich, but requests that an additional area is added as a growth option. Land at Beach Road is well positioned adjacent to the existing settlement boundary and in close proximity to existing services and facilities, including a train station and bus stops. Therefore, the Site is considered to be appropriate in relation to both growth Options B and C. The results of the Stage One assessment (as listed in the LAA Stage One Update 2025 Housing Excel File) suggest that the Site was excluded from the LPIO document due to more than 10% of the Site being located within the Green Belt. No other initial constraints were identified. Given that two of the growth options allow for development on Green Belt land, it is not clear why the Site has been fully discounted at this stage. Additionally, the Stage One results do not refer to grey belt policy. In the case of Land at Beach Road, it is considered that the Site should be considered a grey belt site which would remove the Green Belt constraint. In accordance with Paragraph 148 of the Framework, where it is necessary to release land within the Green Belt for development, priority should be given first to previously developed land, followed by grey belt land that has not been previously developed, and finally to other Green Belt locations. For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as “land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development”. The Site does not comprise previously developed land, but it is not considered to strongly contribute towards the relevant purposes of the Green Belt, as outlined below. There are not considered to be any Footnote 7 assets or areas that would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

Comment

Representation ID: 14783

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Carmel Rumsey

I&O_15334
The only answer is to choose option A. Retain green belt, and to encourage redevelopment of existing buildings like Bhs into good housing. In keeping with the Architecture of Chester as those buildings at the Bars and of city rd Oliver's solicitors.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14787

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rowland Homes

Agent: PWA Planning

I&O_15338
Rowland Homes Ltd support Option 2 as the most appropriate spatial approach. This option focuses growth in the most sustainable settlements whilst enabling targeted release of Green Belt land where justified. This is consistent with the revised NPPF (December 2024), which recognises “Grey Belt” and allows proportionate Green Belt release to address housing need without fundamentally undermining Green Belt purposes. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Rowland Homes Ltd strongly supports Option 2 as the most appropriate spatial strategy for the emerging Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan. The evidence clearly shows that the Borough cannot meet its future housing needs without a review of the Green Belt. Option 2 provides a pragmatic and sustainable approach, focusing growth in settlements with existing infrastructure and transport connections, while allowing for targeted Green Belt release in locations that are well-contained, defensible, and capable of delivering significant public benefits. The site at Mickle Trafford exemplifies how Option 2 can be implemented effectively. It is visually contained, sustainably located, and well-related to existing services and transport networks. The site is capable of delivering up to 160 dwellings, including 45% affordable housing, alongside new public open space, green infrastructure, and necessary infrastructure contributions, making it fully deliverable and capable of early delivery. Rowland Homes is a reputable, major regional housebuilder with a proven track record of delivering high-quality housing, and the site is capable of coming forward largely in the short term, contributing quickly to the Borough’s five-year housing land supply. Allocating this site would enable the Council to address the Borough’s urgent housing shortfall, contribute to a five-year housing land supply, and support wider objectives for sustainable development, infrastructure provision, and carbon reduction. We therefore urge the Council to confirm Option 2 as the preferred spatial strategy and to consider the Mickle Trafford site for allocation in the emerging Local Plan.

Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 14807

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Mitchell

Agent: Grimster Planning

I&O_15358
Please refer to comments in response to questions SS14, SS15 and SS17 below.

Comment

Representation ID: 14840

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15391
In respect of development numbers in Tattenhall, the options generate the following numbers: • Option A –Between 500- 1,500 homes • Option B – Up to 500 homes • Option C – Up to 500 homes We consider that Tattenhall can sustainably support a higher development quantum in line with Option A, but that none the current spatial strategy options as currently drafted are suitable in isolation – please see response to SS 12 below.

Comment

Representation ID: 14863

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Stubbs

Agent: Grimster Planning

I&O_15414
Please refer to comments in response to questions SS14, SS16 and SS18 below.

Comment

Representation ID: 14891

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: The Oulton Estate

Agent: Grimster Planning

I&O_15442
Please refer to comments in response to questions SS14, SS16 and SS18 below.

Comment

Representation ID: 14902

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: ELAN HOMES

I&O_15453
Our general commentary upon the Issues & Options strategy is in agreement with the consideration of release of Green Belt land in good quality, sustainable locations on the edge of settlement boundaries where urban amenities are in easy reach.  Therefore both Options B and C are applicable in relation to Bradley Lane, and FRO01.

Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 14903

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: ELAN HOMES

I&O_15454
Our general commentary upon the Issues & Options strategy is in agreement with the consideration of release of Green Belt land in good quality, sustainable locations on the edge of settlement boundaries where urban amenities are in easy reach.  Therefore both Options B and C are applicable in relation to Bradley Lane, and FRO01.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 14908

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Anthony Clark

I&O_15459
Option A and Option B are unviable and should be discounted. They will fail to meet NPPF requirements. In particular para 15 by failing to meet housing needs and addressing other economic, social and environmental priorities. There are also several fundamental delivery challenges to Option A in relation to the pace of supply and risks of supply. Option C should be pursued as a preferred option supporting considerable sustainable growth and development opportunities in Neston and Parkgate by example.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 14971

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Strategic Land

Agent: Turley

I&O_15530
The Reg 18 Consultation Draft Plan sets out three Spatial Strategy Options, all of which the Council suggests are capable of accommodating at least 29,000 dwellings, which in theory would meet the minimum housing needs over a 15-year plan period in accordance with the standard method – however, further evidence will be required to demonstrate this is achievable. ASL’s view on each option is as follows: Option A: ASL considers that an approach which does not include a level of Green Belt release is unlikely to be appropriate, as this would be unlikely to meet the local housing needs across the Borough, and could lead to an unsustainable spatial strategy. Assuming that, as proposed, c.16,000 homes would be delivered around Northwich and Winsford, there would be a requirement for a further c.12,920 dwellings in other parts of the Borough. ASL does not consider that this would be a sustainable spatial strategy and there is a lack of evidence presented to confirm whether Northwich and Winsford could accommodate the scale of development proposed. On this basis, this option is not supported. Option B: ASL considers that Option B is the most appropriate of the three options presented, proposing growth in all existing urban centres and Key Service Centres reflecting their role within their settlement hierarchy and range of services and facilities on offer. These are the most sustainable settlements in the Borough and already benefit from a range of services and facilities to support residential populations. Maintaining the distribution of growth across the Borough would help to continue the positive approach to new development within these settlements which has been delivered by the adopted Local Plan. This option would also enable growth to be accommodated where it is shown to be needed, regardless of existing policy or Green Belt constraints – for example the emerging evidence base is likely to identify housing needs in Chester (and other Green Belt constrained settlements), which wouldn’t be met by the allocation of land for housing in Winsford or other settlements. Option C: In this option, the majority of growth would be directed to settlements with a train station or on main bus route corridors. ASL does not consider this to be an appropriate strategy as the presence of a public transport connection alone is not a definitive proxy for sustainability – consideration of a full range of services, including retail, community and education provision, as well as employment opportunities, should also be taken into account. The majority of the Borough’s existing Key Service Centres, recognised for their sustainability and providing services and facilities to support their surrounding population, do not have train stations and therefore should not be overlooked for growth. For the reasons set out above, ASL considers that the most appropriate spatial strategy for CWAC is Option B, which reflects that the distribution of development will be informed by the relative sustainability of the settlement with a proportionate level of new housing (and employment) growth located within each.
Option B - use the Sustainability Appraisal objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 15005

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes North West

Agent: Lichfields

I&O_15564
Policy SS5 outlines three growth options for the distribution of development across the Borough: a Option A – Retain the Green Belt b Option B – Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development c Option C – Sustainable transport corridors Option A focuses housing development in areas outside the Green Belt, such as south of Northwich, southwest of Winsford, and around settlements like Tarporley, Tattenhall, Malpas, and Farndon. This option would retain the Green Belt and would not result in any release through the new Local Plan.  Option B proposes continuing the approach set out in the existing Local Plan, with large urban extensions around Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich, and Winsford, and limited development in smaller settlements. This option includes the release of Green Belt land to accommodate approximately 11,000 dwellings. Option C also involves Green Belt release, but with a more balanced distribution, with modest development around major settlements and increased development in smaller settlements with rail stations or along bus corridors. Green Belt release in this instance would accommodate in excess of 12,000 dwellings. Bloor is broadly supportive of both Option B and Option C, as they allow development to be directed to the most sustainable locations within the borough. It would be illogical to avoid such locations solely to protect the Green Belt, particularly when national policy provides a clear framework for its release.  Additionally, much of the northern part of the Borough is constrained by Green Belt. This includes the land around Chester. Allowing Green Belt release in these sustainable locations ensures that new homes are positioned close to essential services and amenities. Avoiding Green Belt release would lead to an over-reliance on smaller settlements in the south of the Borough, which often lack the same level of infrastructure and sustainability credentials. While these settlements should accommodate a proportionate level of growth, directing the majority of development to them would not represent a sustainable spatial strategy. Bloor would additionally like to highlight the latter paragraphs of SS 5, noting the findings of the Inspector’s report on the examination of the adopted Local Plan (Part One) which concluded that additional release of Green Belt land around Chester would have a significant adverse effect on thepurposes of including land within the Green Belt including to the historic setting, and that the amended Green Belt boundary proposed was capable of enduring and would not need to be altered at the end of the plan period (2030). To this regard, the Inspector’s report was published in 2014 and considered the adopted Local Plan in a vastly different policy context, and against an objectively assessed need for housing well below the current LHN. It would be inappropriate to draw out the conclusions from this report and apply this to the emerging Local Plan given the currently incomparable context. Looking to the site itself, the Cheshire West and Chester Stage One Green Belt Study, prepared in 2013 as part of the evidence base for adopted Local Plan (Part One), noted that in regard to wider 25ha study area four (Land South of Whitchurch Road), the triangular land parcel in which the site sits, there were no views in to or out of the city due to the land’s topography, and that the landscape and setting is fragmented within the parcel in relation to this Green Belt purpose (d). The Cheshire West and Chester Stage Two Green Belt Study (2013) similarly noted that whilst the removal of this parcel would impact on the area’s ability to maintain the remaining gap between Chester and Christleton and affect its role in helping to define the setting and special character of the historic city, current land use patterns have already compromised the gap between the city and the village to some degree and the new boundary following removal from the Green Belt would not reduce the distance between the city and Christleton. The argument that the release of this area in particular from the Green Belt would significantly impact the historic setting of Chester therefore does not appear to be substantiated, especially given the additional guidance on assessing the contribution land makes to the Green Belt purposes provided in the PPG (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 64-005-20250225). Of particular note, since the preparation of the Stage One and Two Green Belt Study, a retirement village has come forward in the northwest of the parcel on the site of the former Beechmoor Garden Centre, allowed at appeal in 2019 (ref. APP/A0665/W/18/3203413), further urbanising the wider parcel. Bloor therefore considers that it is inappropriate for the Council to rely on the conclusions of the Inspector’s report here, which are not entirely reflective of the area specific assessments undertaken to inform the adopted Local Plan. Avoiding the release of Green Belt sites in Chester on the findings of an Inspector’s report published almost 11 years prior to this consultation would be entirely illogical, particularly given efforts to direct development to the most sustainable locations. Looking to the final paragraph of SS 5, which recognises that there may be other approaches that could be taken outside of the three suggested options, Bloor would like to reiterate the importance of locating development in the most sustainable locations, regardless of Green Belt designation particularly given the existence of national policy mechanisms that allow for appropriate Green Belt release. Pursuing an option that avoids such release should not be considered appropriate given the nature of the Borough’s existing patterns of development. Bloor therefore recommends that the Council proceed with either Option B or Option C as the preferred spatial strategy for the new Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 15024

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Grosvenor's Eaton Estate

Agent: Stantec

I&O_15583
Whilst the three options are only indicative at this stage and Grosvenor expects further evidence to be provided by the Council in terms of land availability, suitability, and viability evidence for each option, it is considered that the Council’s strategy should focus on delivering proportionate and balanced growth across each settlement to ensure its development needs are met, which will include the release of Green Belt land and focusing on more sustainable options in terms of accessibility and local facilities. As set out in Section 4 of these Representations, Grosvenor’s land to the East of Wrexham Road in Chester is considered to be strong candidate for a strategic housing allocation in the new Local Plan, which will support the distinctive role of Chester into the next plan period. Grosvenor’s land interests in Waverton and Churton also offer opportunities for smaller housing allocations, which will support these smaller settlements and help to achieve a proportionate level of growth across the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 15060

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Garden Village Ltd

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_15619
Option B is the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester, as it allows for a realistic balance between meeting increased housing and employment needs and making selective, justified Green Belt releases in sustainable locations. This approach recognises that significant constraints on brownfield and previously allocated land exist, and that sustainable urban extensions including Green Belt release where warranted will be necessary to meet the borough’s development requirements. CGV supports the approach outlined in Option B’s spatial strategy, which indicates that Northwich and its surrounding area could accommodate over 5,000 new homes. This level of provision is complemented by the recognition that greenfield land on the town’s periphery may be appropriate for employment expansion. The spatial strategy map also highlights areas outside Northwich town centre as key locations for office development and the enhancement of existing employment areas. CGV agrees with this balanced and strategic approach to growth, which supports both housing and economic development in a sustainable manner. In this context, Land off Chester Way, promoted by CGV is a logical and sustainable extension to the existing employment area. While in the Green Belt, it is closely related to the urban area, benefits from adjacency to existing employment uses, and can deliver modern employment floorspace to enhance the overall quality and functionality of the area. Therefore, a strategy that allows for planned growth in line with current distribution patterns, but with targeted Green Belt release where it supports sustainable development, is the most effective and deliverable option for the new Local Plan. CGV do additionally recognise and support the spatial strategy identified under Option C whereby potential greenfield employment expansion is proposed in proximity to Northwich and this area is identified to deliver new homes.
Option B - use the Sustainability Appraisal objectives
Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 15088

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Wain Homes (North West) Ltd

Agent: Emery Planning Partnership

I&O_15647
These representations focus on Clive Hall Farm, which falls within Winsford. The options for Winsford are as follows: Option A – 10,000+ dwellings Option B – 3,000 – 5,000 dwellings Option C – 3,000 – 5,000 dwellings All of the above options recognise the settlement’s growth opportunities and its role as a key settlement in the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 15093

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Asteer Planning

I&O_15652
The Policy Approach to SS 5 sets out the potential growth options that have been identified by CWaC, which are categorised into the three spatial strategies as set out in Question SS 11 (above). The potential growth locations for each settlement are set out to indicate the possible pattern of development where growth might take place. The site sits between potential growth location, reference ‘NOR9’, and the current settlement boundary of Northwich (as illustrated in Figure 2 - see attachment). Within the growth options it is recognised that, ““a key difference between the Local Plan (Part One) and the new Local Plan is that there is a much more limited supply of previously developed land to accommodate new development, and unlike the last plan, larger areas of Green Belt and/or countryside are likely to be needed”. Persimmon welcome this recognition and consider that as a first priority, CWaC should prioritise making the most effective use of land by allocating infill sites such as the site at Fullerton Road, which are currently underutilised and form a natural extension to the existing settlement boundary. Persimmon fully supports a significant level of growth in Northwich, which is on of CWaC’s top tier settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 15111

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: StanleyRed Developments Ltd

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_15670
Option C is the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester, as it allows for the delivery of housing and employment within strategic and accessible locations across the borough. Concentrating growth in these areas ensures new development is well connected to employment, education, and services, while reducing reliance on private cars and encouraging more sustainable patterns of movement. StanleyRed support the approach outlined in Option C which is proactive in recognising the need for total Green Belt Release of sites to deliver more than 12,000 homes. Within this approach, Frodsham and its surrounding area is set to accommodate between 1,500-3,000 new homes. In the case of Frodsham, Land at Saltworks Farm represents this type of opportunity. The site is located adjacent to the settlement edge, within walking distance of Frodsham town centre and public transport connections, and immediately south of the M56 corridor. This strategic position means the site is highly accessible both locally and regionally, supporting sustainable commuting patterns and strengthening links to nearby service centres. Delivering housing along transport corridors not only reduces infrastructure costs but also helps create resilient communities with better access to services, in line with national policy. For these reasons, we fully support this vision and consider the Site an ideal example of how it can be delivered in practice. In summary, Option C is supported, or an alternative option which recognises that growth should be established through active consideration of selective release of Green Belt land where it is adjacent to existing development, offers strong sustainability credentials, and helps deliver wider residential goals, as is the case with the StanleyRed’s land at Saltworks Farm located to the south of the M56.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 15148

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Views Holdings Ltd

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_15707
Option B is the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester, as it allows for a realistic balance between meeting increased housing and employment needs and making selective, justified Green Belt releases in sustainable locations. This approach recognises that significant constraints on brownfield and previously allocated land exist, and that sustainable urban extensions including Green Belt release where warranted will be necessary to meet the borough’s development requirements. Views supports the approach outlined in Option B’s spatial strategy, which indicates that Northwich and its surrounding area could accommodate over 5,000 new homes. This level of provision is complemented by the recognition that much of the new development under this option would need to be located within the Green Belt and/or countryside. Views agrees with this balanced and strategic approach to growth, which supports both housing and economic development in a sustainable manner. In this context, Land off London Road, promoted by Views is a logical and sustainable extension to the existing built form of Davenham. While in the Open Countryside, it is closely related to the urban area and benefits from adjacency to existing residential uses. Therefore, a strategy that allows for planned growth in line with current distribution patterns, but with targeted allocation of land where it supports sustainable development, is the most effective and deliverable option for the new Local Plan. Views do additionally recognise and support the spatial strategy identified under Option C whereby potential greenfield employment expansion is proposed in proximity to Northwich and this area is identified to deliver new homes.

Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 15198

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15757
We do not support any of these options in isolation, please see response to SS 12 below. We note the HBF also agree that no option will be suitable in isolation – suggesting that positive elements of each approach should be taken forward, including supporting the vitality of smaller settlements, but also supporting the development of land within or adjacent to the larger settlements where developments are likely to be more sustainable.

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 15240

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Chester Zoo

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15799
A change in the national government objectives with significantly increased housing targets have changed the circumstances of development in CWAC since the adoption of the Local Plan (Part One). Brownfield land within settlement boundaries is a finite resource and availability is only reducing. Hence, extensions to existing settlements must be a supported option. This can include both open countryside land and Green Belt release, so long as the scale of such extensions is appropriate to the strategic growth of established settlements. Should Green Belt release be justified, which it is in particular locations, as it is the only option geographically for the expansion of some settlements, this is best served by small-scale releases across a series of appropriate locations. Most notably Chester, in the first tier of the settlement hierarchy, which is completely enveloped by Green Belt designation. Therefore, Chester Zoo are in favour of the retention of Green Belt land per se, whilst recognising that some small-scale release of Green Belt is likely to be required in strategic locations to support the new housing target. Large urban extensions are not necessary and are not supported. In order to meet the new housing targets and contribute to boosting the supply of homes, Chester Zoo would consider that areas of the Green Belt which met the Grey Belt definition should be the priority for release from Green Belt designation. What is required is an updated Green Belt Study, comparable to that undertaken for the last Local Plan review. This would allow for development of the small parcels of land which are surrounded by, or well related to, existing development and are not contributing to the purposes of the Green Belt.  Additionally, Green Belt policies should reflect the change in national policy with the recognition of grey belt land and its development as an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. If the council were minded not to release any Green Belt where there is existing development on all sides, this land could be developed under a grey belt policy. Chester Zoo would consider that development on this basis, identifying areas which not contributing to the Green Belt and either releasing them or developing them under a grey belt approach would allow the council to reach their housing targets without large scale Green Belt release which would have an adverse impact on the key settlements and the surrounding area. In summary, none of the three presented Options can be supported, as presented. The suggested spatial strategy approach is a revised Option B, to include consideration of small-scale release of Green Belt (akin to Grey Belt definition) in appropriate locations. It is paramount to allow small scale extension of the Chester settlement boundary, including site-specific Green Belt release. This is opposed to any largescale release of Green Belt, which will only go to compromising the value of the wider Green Belt and weaken its protection. The previous Green Belt Study and its conclusions is a good starting point.

Comment

Representation ID: 15264

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Chester Zoo

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15823
It is considered that Chester Zoo would be in support of Option B (in varied form with allowance for small scale release of Green Belt) as a spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester. 7.2 Chester Zoo are in favour of the retention of Green Belt land per se, whilst recognising that some small-scale release of Green Belt is likely to be required in strategic locations to support the new housing target. Large urban extensions are not necessary and are not supported. 7.3 In order to meet the new housing targets and contribute to boosting the supply of homes, Chester Zoo would consider that areas of the Green Belt which met the Grey Belt definition should be the priority for release from Green Belt designation. 7.4 What is required is an updated Green Belt Study, comparable to that undertaken for the last Local Plan review.

Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 15300

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peel NRE Limited

Agent: Turley

I&O_15859
d. none of these.

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 15349

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Asteer Planning

I&O_15908
This section outlines that the above initial options for growth have been identified by CWaC. The site at Darnhall School Lane is identified as part of a wider potential growth option, as reference ‘WIN05’, in Options A and C, as illustrated in Figure 2: See attachment. Richborough consider that Policy Approach SS 5 should identify Darnhall School Lane as a housing growth location in all three spatial strategy options. The site represents the most sustainable and genuinely deliverable option for housing in Winsford, of a scale that is capable of providing a range of benefits to Winsford and the wider borough. The Vision Document at Appendix 2 demonstrates the reasons why the site is deliverable and why it would represent a sensitive and logical extension to the southern edge of Winsford in spatial, physical and visual terms. It is also without major constraints when considering the major physical and policy constraints on Winsford’s settlement edge, particularly when compared to other identified potential growth locations. Figure 3 identifies the growth locations in the context of the Winsford Constraints Map at Figure 9.3 (Page 112) of the Issues and Options Consultation. Based on the above, Richborough consider that WIN05 represents the most appropriate and least constrained option, when considered in the context of alternative growth locations, including: • WIN04 – this location includes a conservation area and a number of listed buildings adjacent to the settlement boundary. Any development in this location would have a significant impact on statutory heritage assets. • WIN07 – this location is a less logical option to expand Winsford, encroaching into the open countryside to the north, and located further from key services and facilities in the town. Richborough consider that to meet the levels of growth proposed in Winsford (which for the lowest growth options in 3,000-5,000 homes), WIN05 should be identified as a key strategic site, which is the most logical and appropriate location to amend the settlement boundary, in any growth scenario that is pursued. Richborough’s comments on each current growth option is provided below. Option A  Richborough would support Option A which identifies significant urban extensions to the south west of Winsford, and a level of growth for Winsford that would deliver around 11,000 homes. However, Option A does need to recognise that there needs to be some Green Belt release, especially around Chester as the top tier settlement. This option seeks to retain the Green Belt, by focussing development on settlements without Green Belt constraints, such as Winsford. The site is identified as a potential location for housing growth within this option under ‘WIN05’. Winsford is a Main Town in the Borough and therefore it appropriate to direct a significant level of growth to the settlement, commensurate with its capacity for growth and non-Green Belt location. Option B Option B seeks to follow the Local Plan level and distribution of development with reference to the settlement hierarchy, by locating most new development on the edge of main urban areas or around smaller settlements which have adequate services, facilities and access to public transport. Option B recognises that “a key difference between the Local Plan (Part One) and the new Local Plan is that there is a much more limited supply of previously developed land to accommodate new development, and unlike the last plan, larger areas of Green Belt and/or countryside are likely to be needed”. Richborough welcomes this recognition and considers that any growth strategy that follows Option B should reflect this situation and attribute a level of growth to Winsford that reflects its status as a Main Town and a key focus for growth in the adopted Local Plan. To follow the level and distribution of development within the adopted Local Plan, Winsford should accommodate a higher level of growth than is attributed within proposed Option B. Within the adopted Local Plan, Winsford had a requirement of 3,500 homes out of the total Borough requirement of 22,000 which equates to 16%. Within Option B, only 3,000 – 5,000 homes are proposed for Winsford out of a total requirement of 28,170 homes which equates to a range of 11-18%. This is likely to result in a lower proportion of growth within Winsford, which is not in line with the distribution of development as per the adopted plan and in line with the settlement hierarchy. Furthermore, Winsford has a history of underdelivering on its housing requirements due to a lack of deliverable sites. Out of the 3,500 housing requirement, only 2,513 homes were completed in the period of 2010-2024 which is a shortfall of 987 homes or 28% (reported in the CWaC Annual Monitoring Report, 2024). This is a significant shortfall which is not attributable to market conditions, but the selection of sites with poor deliverability. As discussed earlier, the Station Quarter Allocation (in the Local Plan Part One and the Winsford Neighbourhood Plan), has known deliverability constraints and has failed to deliver homes, and therefore there are concerns over relying on this allocation to provide for the settlement’s housing needs in the next Plan Period. Notwithstanding this and in the context of comments in relation to the suitability of proposed residential growth locations, Richborough strongly considers that the site at Darnhall School Lane should be identified for housing growth within Option B, as a deliverable and sustainable option for housing growth in Winsford to meet the local housing needs. The site is wholly deliverable and sequentially preferable to other options, and should be fully considered as a sustainable urban extension if Option B is taken forward. Option C Option C seeks to focus development around settlements on the railway network or main bus route corridors. This identifies housing growth in Winsford for around 3,000 – 5,000 homes. The site is identified as a potential location for housing growth within this option under ‘WIN05’. Richborough supports Option C and considers that Winsford is a highly sustainable settlement to accommodate growth due to having a train station with regular services to major employment centres Liverpool Lime Street and Birmingham New Street.

Comment

Representation ID: 15380

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: R and C Handley

Agent: Matthew Wedderburn

I&O_15939
We consider Option B (“the current Local Plan level and distribution of development”) is the most appropriate, but this is provided that the government’s housing minimum target of 1,914 homes per annum, or 28,914 for a 15-year period is also met. Given Chester city’s role as the pre-eminent centre in the Borough we would however highlight that the consultation document does not set the quantum of development that would come forward specifically in the Chester area. The current Local Plan contains a housing target of 22,000 new dwellings and the previous strategy here set out that Chester should “deliver at least 5,200 new dwellings”, i.e. around 24% of the total overall growth in that plan. Applying the government’s current 28,914 target in the same broad proportions, would amount to a figure of 6,824 dwellings for the Chester area. We would agree that a similar strategy that directs around a quarter of all growth coming forward to the Chester area remains appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 15394

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15953
A change in the national government objectives with significantly increased housing targets have changed the circumstances of development in CWAC since the adoption of the Local Plan (Part One). Brownfield land within settlement boundaries is a finite resource and availability is only reducing. Hence, extensions to existing settlements must be a supported option. This can include both open countryside land and Green Belt release, so long as the scale of such extensions is appropriate to the strategic growth of established settlements.  Should Green Belt release be justified, which it is in particular locations, as it is the only option geographically for the expansion of some settlements, this is best served by small-scale releases across a series of appropriate locations. Most notably the first and second tiers of the settlement hierarchy, so including Northwich (and associated settlement such as Lostock Gralam). Therefore, The Trust are in favour of the retention of Green Belt land per se, whilst recognising that some small-scale release of Green Belt is likely to be required in strategic locations to support the new housing target. Large urban extensions are not necessary and are not supported. In order to meet the new housing targets and contribute to boosting the supply of homes, The Trust would consider that areas of the Green Belt which met the Grey Belt definition should be the priority for release from Green Belt designation. What is required is an updated Green Belt Study, comparable to that undertaken for the last Local Plan review. However, unlike the previous Study, which only assessed Green Belt around the settlement boundary of Chester, any new Study is now required to include assessment of Green Belt around all Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements – Northwich and associated settlements specifically included. This would allow for development of the small parcels of land which are surrounded by, or well related to, existing development and are not contributing to the purposes of the Green Belt. Additionally, Green Belt policies should reflect the change in national policy with the recognition of grey belt land and its development as an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. If the council were minded not to release any Green Belt where there is existing development on all sides, this land could be developed under a grey belt policy. The Trust would consider that development on this basis, identifying areas which not contributing to the Green Belt and either releasing them or developing them under a grey belt approach would allow the council to reach their housing targets without large scale Green Belt release which would have an adverse impact on the key settlements and the surrounding area. In summary, none of the three presented Options can be supported, as presented. The suggested spatial strategy approach is a revised Option B, to include consideration of small-scale release of Green Belt (akin to Grey Belt definition) in appropriate locations. This can include Chester to a certain degree, but priority should be given to the second tier settlements, such as Northwich and the associated settlements such as Lostock Gralam.

Comment

Representation ID: 15406

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15965
Summary It is considered that The Trust would be in support of Option B (in varied form with allowance for small scale release of Green Belt) as a spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester. The Trust would consider that Option C has some potential, particularly with reference to modest urban extensions around Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements. What needs to be clarified is that these extensions would be accommodated through limited Green Belt release in addition to areas of open countryside. The Trust are in favour of the retention of Green Belt land per se, whilst recognising that some small-scale release of Green Belt is likely to be required in strategic locations to support the new housing target. Large urban extensions are not necessary and are not supported.