Comment

Representation ID: 15453

Received: 21/10/2025

Respondent: Wirral Borough Council

I&O_16012
Please select the option which is the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester WBC Response: No comments at this stage Do you have any further comments you wish to make about the approach to the spatial strategy for the new Local Plan? WBC Response: Option C would entail more modest urban extensions around Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Winsford, while smaller settlements with a railway station such as Neston would play a bigger role in accommodating development and there would be potential for an enhanced role around rural rail stations such as Hooton. While Neston benefits from a railway station, its suitability for development would depend on infrastructure capacity and sustainability assessments. Spatial Implications of Growth around key settlements in Wirral. Growth options around each main settlement have been mapped irrespective of Green Belt constraints. While most proposals are unlikely to directly affect Wirral, there are notable exceptions. Release of Green Belt around Hooton could potentially reduce the degree of separation with Eastham. Similarly, release of Green Belt to the north of Neston could narrow the separation with Heswall and Gayton, raising potential cross-boundary considerations. Although Willaston remains designated as a rural area with no proposed change, and much of Neston and Parkgate is also formally rural, the scale and location of growth in these areas could influence future service demand and infrastructure pressures in Wirral. Notably, Ellesmere Port is examined in more detail, but proposals there do not appear to narrow the physical or strategic gap with Wirral, an issue that has previously been sensitive in cross-boundary discussions. The level of development proposed in Options B and C could have significant impacts on the scale of regeneration in Wirral, particularly in areas where cross-boundary interaction with Wirral are already significant, such as Neston and Hooton. Option C could result in improvements to existing transport links, such as railway stations, enhancing connectivity between Wirral and Cheshire West, particularly if supported by transport infrastructure upgrades. However, development in these areas could have other negative cross-boundary implications, including increased traffic flows into Wirral, greater demand on local services such as schools and healthcare, and potential environmental impacts on shared assets like the Dee Estuary.

Comment

Representation ID: 15552

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Liberty Properties plc

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_16111
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, but also the key service centres well related to and benefitting from shared service and facilities to such areas, e.g. Cuddington & Sandiway. Therefore, Liberty Properties 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, Liberty Properties 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 & Tier 2 settlements and the key service centres (where Green Belt id applicable) – Cuddington & Sandiway 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. Liberty Properties 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 and the key service centres where Green Belt is applicable, such as Cuddington & Sandiway.

Comment

Representation ID: 15597

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16156
We support Option A attribute 1,500 new dwellings to Malpas. We consider Malpas to be a high-performing settlement that is capable of accommodating a higher level of development. It is also relatively less constrained, as there is no Green Belt designation surrounding the settlement. However, we consider none the current spatial strategy options as currently drafted are suitable in isolation – please see response to SS 12 below.

Comment

Representation ID: 15750

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Northern Powerhouse Land Ltd

Agent: Asteer Planning

I&O_16309
It is understood that Option A seeks to retain the Green Belt by focussing development on settlements without Green Belt constraints; Option B seeks to follow the current 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; and, Option C seeks to focus development around settlements on the railway network or main bus route corridors. As detailed above, the new standard method has resulted in a substantial increase in CWaC’s LHN figure from 532dpa to 1,914dpa (259.77% increase). This is a considerable increase when compared to the current Local Plan requirement of 1,100dpa. It is important that the future housing needs of CWaC are rooted in the new standard method to ensure that the new Local Plan is robust. Therefore, the new Local Plan must allocate sites beyond the existing settlement boundaries to meet its substantial housing needs. The site is located on the edge of the urban area of Middlewich, which is identified as a Key Service Centre within the Cheshire East Local Plan, and has strong links to Cheshire West and Chester (as detailed in the preceding sections of these representations). As detailed above, the site has good accessibility to public transport, including bus services and a railway station is planned in Middlewich. Furthermore, it is important to note that the site comprises land currently identified as ‘Countryside’ as opposed to Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 15815

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16374
In the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) the only area where option A scores highly is in respect of conserving and enhancing the historic environment. However, in implementing this option the density of development in existing urban locations, such as Chester where there are numerous historic assets, would need to increase. This option actually therefore has the potential to negatively impact this consideration in the SA. In addition, as set out above given the introduction of 'Grey Belt' land in the NPPF there should be a review of the Green Belt to identify land that is suitable for release given this change (and others) in National Policy. It is clear that in all other considerations set out in the SA that options B and C comprise of the most sustainable approaches for the emerging Local Plan, and that these options align with the Council's commitment to its declared Climate Emergency and the associated ‘Cheshire West and Chester Climate Emergency Response Plan’.

Comment

Representation ID: 15837

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: West Midlands Pension Fund

Agent: Knight Frank

I&O_16396
Option C is the most appropriate spatial strategy that has been identified. Avoiding Green Belt release would likely cause the overdevelopment of villages, settlements and locations with poor infrastructure, and significant growth in places with relatively limited services, facilities and opportunities for sustainable travel. In avoiding Green Belt release, the Council is therefore at significant risk of formulating a spatial strategy that conflicts with the principles of sustainable development and unequivocally fails the tests of soundness. The spatial strategy and site allocations should seek to locate development where it can contribute to reducing the impacts of climate change. For example, by reducing the need for cross Green Belt commuting and supporting the commitment for decarbonising travel. It should focus on directing a significant element of the new development close to the urban edge of the main settlements such as Northwich and its peripheral settlements (including Wincham and Higher Wincham), utilising suitable sites in greater proximity to existing jobs and public transport routes thus capitalising upon existing facilities and infrastructure.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 15861

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes North West

Agent: Turley

I&O_16420
As explained above, BDW does not consider Option A to be an appropriate spatial strategy, as it fails to include any release of Green Belt land. Such release is a necessary component to meet the borough’s housing needs. This is supported by the Council’s own evidence base on land availability, which identifies a potential capacity of approximately 11,000 homes. As noted above (paragraph 3.25), there is insufficient land within the urban area to accommodate the minimum requirement of 28,290 dwellings over a 15-year plan period, or 38,560 dwellings over a 20-year period. Consequently, additional housing land must be identified beyond the existing settlement boundary, including land currently designated as countryside or Green Belt. While BDW are generally supportive of Option B, which identifies significant Green Belt release around Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Chester, it is noted that larger settlements such as Neston and Frodsham will have a relatively limited level of new development compared to their size, transport connections and services. In particular, as Frodsham now has an elevated status in the settlement hierarchy as a ‘market town’, a proportionate level of growth should be assigned to Frodsham, as opposed to relying upon the previous level of distribution. Option C seeks to direct development in and around locations which offer sustainable transport connections. This will require Green Belt release around more settlements and would introduce more development in some of the smaller settlements including Hooton, Capenhurst, Elton, Acton Bridge and Mouldsworth. A review the approach to locations for development in Option C identifies that, whilst the sites may be sustainable in respect of their proximity to a rural train station, many of the proposed locations are limited in terms of their access to essential services and facilities such as schools and healthcare. BDW therefore urges the Council to exercise caution in prioritising transport hubs as the primary basis for new development. A more balanced, holistic approach to assessing site sustainability is recommended. Under Option A/B, Frodsham is identified to accommodate up to 500 homes, whereas Option C proposes a significantly higher level of growth, ranging from 1,500 to 3,000 homes. The Dig Lane site (ref. FRO03) is included as a potential growth option for housing development in Frodsham in both Options B and C. Option A involves no Green Belt release around Frodsham. 3.50 As such, BDW recommend that the Council adopt a hybrid approach between Options B and C; one that recognises the strategic role of larger settlements such as Frodsham, while ensuring that sustainable considerations extend beyond transport accessibility alone. Further detail on this approach is outlined within Chapter 6 of the Pegasus representations.

Comment

Representation ID: 15929

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16488
In the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) the only area where option A scores highly is in respect of conserving and enhancing the historic environment. However, in implementing this option the density of development in existing urban locations, such as Chester where there are numerous historic assets, would need to increase. This option actually therefore has the potential to negatively impact this consideration in the SA. In addition, as set out above given the introduction of 'Grey Belt' land in the NPPF there should be a review of the Green Belt to identify land that is suitable for release given this change (and others) in National Policy. It is clear that in all other considerations set out in the SA that options B and C comprise of the most sustainable approaches for the emerging Local Plan, and that these options align with the Council's  commitment to its declared Climate Emergency and the associated ‘Cheshire West and Chester Climate Emergency Response Plan’.

Comment

Representation ID: 15953

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Hayward

I&O_16533
I am in favour of option A to retain the green belt the other options in my opinion are not what the majority of people would want .

Comment

Representation ID: 15956

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Corcoran

I&O_16537
I believe that  Option A  -  Retain the Green Belt  is the only suitable option at this present time.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Support

Representation ID: 15964

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Northern Trust Land Limited

Agent: Savills (UK) Limited

I&O_16545
Land at London Road, Davenham could come forward under Options A, B or C, since it is not located in the Green Belt and is located in a sustainable location nearby to public transport options and the existing settlement of Davenham. Notwithstanding that the Site can be delivered under Option A, the most appropriate spatial strategy for the District is considered to be a combination of Options B and C. Option A alone as a spatial strategy could risk discounting sustainable sites that are within the Green Belt from contributing to housing delivery which could in turn lead to a shortfall of overall housing being delivered across the District. In order to ensure the Local Plan is ambitious and plans to deliver sufficient housing (i.e. a minimum of 1,982 homes per year), the Council will need to review Sites that are both within and outside of the Green Belt, which are in sustainable locations. While Savills recognises the prioritisation of previously developed land for housing development, there is not a sufficient supply of available previously developed land in urban areas that is capable of accommodating the housing requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 16041

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Homes

Agent: Savills (UK) Limited

I&O_16622
The most appropriate spatial strategies for CW&C are Options B and C above. Is it considered that Option A would restrict realistic opportunities to deliver sustainable development in appropriate locations in the District. Retaining the current Green Belt boundaries would exclude sustainable locations, such as the Site, from making a contribution to meeting the housing needs of the District and ensuring a sustainable pattern of development. In order to deliver at least 1,928 new homes per year, the Council will need to assess land that is currently within the Green Belt for its potential to deliver sustainable residential development.  While Savills recognises the prioritisation of previously developed land for housing development, there is not a sufficient supply of available previously developed land in urban areas that is capable of accommodating the housing requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 16063

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Asteer Planning

I&O_16644
This section outlines that the above initial options for growth have been identified by CWaC. The site at Swanlow 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 attached] Overarching Comments Richborough consider that Policy Approach SS 5 should identify Swanlow Lane as a housing growth location in all three spatial strategy options. The site represents a logical and genuinely deliverable option for housing in Winsford, in a sustainable location to make use of existing access to public transport infrastructure and services. 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. [see attached] 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 building 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 Swanlow 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: 16121

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs John & Kathy Ricketts

I&O_16702
NO LOSS OF GREEN BELT to achieve any of these

Comment

Representation ID: 16129

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Rosemary Parkinson

I&O_16710


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 16185

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Helen Wilman

I&O_16766


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 16234

Received: 10/09/2025

Respondent: Liane Goryl

I&O_16815
Choice 1 - Do not build on green belt. Green belt land must be retained to ensure the countryside within the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 16298

Received: 29/09/2025

Respondent: People's Choice Group Project

I&O_16879


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 16365

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Church Commissioners for England

Agent: Deloitte LLP

I&O_16946
The Commissioners considers that Option B is the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 16387

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: HFS Delamere Limited

Agent: Wharfe Rural Planning Ltd

I&O_16968
On behalf of our client’s we are in support of the Council’s Option C, which focuses future housing and employment development along transport corridors, whether in the Green Belt or not. This approach has the clear benefit of reducing the pressure for large-scale expansion in the larger towns of the borough while promoting sustainable growth in locations with excellent public transport access.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 16390

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chorlton Lodge

Agent: Cadnant Planning

I&O_16971
We support Option C which focus on sustainable transport corridors, directing new growth to and around existing transport links.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Support

Representation ID: 16413

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jenny Leake

I&O_12855
Option A - retain the Green Belt
Please could you keep the green belt intact and look at other options.

Support

Representation ID: 16416

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Thompson

I&O_9866
To be clear answering question SS11 my choice is option A to retain the green belt.

Support

Representation ID: 16423

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12368
As currently drafted, UUK does not consider any of these spatial strategies to be appropriate5. Further details are set out in the questions for these strategies in the joint response to topic questions SS 12; SS 14; SS 15; SS 16; SS 17; SS 18, and SS 19).

5 For the avoidance of doubt, this is option ‘d’ to Question SS 11 as set out above

Support

Representation ID: 16454

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Grimster Planning

I&O_14531
Please refer to comments in response to questions SS14, SS15 and SS17 below.

Support

Representation ID: 16477

Received: 08/12/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

I&O_16521
Gladman would support a spatial strategy comprising of Green Belt release around Chester and the retention of the Green Belt elsewhere in the borough as being the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester to pursue through the new Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan. Gladman notes that 58% of the borough is not designated as Green Belt meaning that there is sufficient land available outside of this designation that can come forward for residential development over the emerging local plan period to meet a significant amount of its overall housing requirement. Due to the annualised housing requirement of 1,928 dwellings per annum for the borough as its minimum starting point, it is inevitable that there will have to be some further Green Belt release around Chester to accommodate the borough’s overall housing needs.

There are a number of sustainable settlements that lie outside of the Green Belt or are only partially constrained by the designation that are capable of accommodating further housing growth over the emerging plan period such as Cuddington and Sandiway, Middlewich, Tattenhall, Tarvin and Winsford.

Gladman supports the release of Green Belt around Chester due to it being the most sustainable location in the authority area (Tier 1 settlement). Chester is an important sub-regional centre, and the Council rightly recognises it as a key economic driver. This was the strategy that the Council undertook as part of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) by only opting to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of Chester due to the sub-regional role of the city, high levels of in-commuting, affordable housing need and delivering a mix of housing.

Gladman is promoting Land off Hare Lane and Belle Vue Lane, Chester that has been identified by the Council as part of a larger swathe of land located to the east of Chester for housing development as shown on Map 5.4 ‘Chester Growth Options’ (ref: CH02) within the Issues and Options (Regulation 18) consultation document. Gladman submits that the site is suitable, available and deliverable as summarised in the site submission at Section 5 of this document.

[map included in attachment]

Furthermore, Gladman supports the recent statement made by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage in her formal response to Cotswold District Council on 26th August 2025 (3). In her reply, Baroness Taylor acknowledged the district’s constraints but emphasised ‘that all areas must “play their part” in meeting national housing needs’. She pointed to the revised methodology’s affordability focus and strategic planning goals. The same approach has to be taken by all local planning authorities across the country in order to deliver the 300,000 new homes per year (1.5 million homes over the Parliamentary term) target set by Government as part of its manifesto.

Once the Council decides on the strategy it wants to progress with through the new Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan, Gladman reserves the right to comment further.

3 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage response to the Leader of Cotswold District Council (26th August 2025) - https://news.cotswold.gov.uk/news/leader-of-cotswold-district-council-responds-to-governments-letter-stating-housing-targets-remain

Support

Representation ID: 16495

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rushton Parish Council

I&O_7320
While in favour of retaining green belt, Option A would include growth around Tarporley. We are concerned that this would put pressure on local infrastructure and be inconsistent with the principle of conserving settlements' character and setting, and not exceeding the capacity of existing services and infrastructure.

Option B appears to be a more measured growth plan for areas that surround our rural parish and therefore seems more appropriate, despite some new development being in green belt (2500 homes across rural areas). This approach can be supported by option C.

Support

Representation ID: 16770

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes North West

Agent: Lichfields

I&O_15488
Land at Eaton Road forms the western-most parcels of the larger ‘TARP01’ land parcel identified by Map 5.12 of the LPIO. TARP01 is identified as a potential development site under all three spatial strategy options set out in Policy SS5. Bloor welcomes the Council’s recognition that the site could be suitable for residential development under all proposed spatial options. The identification of TARP01 as a suitable development site under all proposed spatial options demonstrates the sustainability of the site’s location and appropriateness for residential development. Bloor is supportive of Spatial Strategy Options B and C, as they allow development to be directed to the most sustainable locations. Whilst TARP01 does not sit within the Green Belt, and is identified under Option A, Bloor does have concerns with Option A as an approach. Option A has the potential to prevent housing delivery in sustainable locations as a result of them currently being located within the Green Belt. National policy provides a clear framework for the release of suitable land within the Green Belt to deliver homes. Bloor considers that this approach should be reflected in the Council’s Spatial Strategy and that Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed to ensure that the most suitable and sustainably located sites are considered for residential allocation. Spatial Strategy Option B seeks relatively limited development in Key Service Centres, including Tarporley, of 3,000 homes across the plan period in total. Bloor considers Tarporley to be sustainably located and home to a number of key services and facilities which would indicate that it is capable of accommodating more than this share of development. Indeed, Options A and C identify Tarporley as being capable of accommodating further development. Bloor consider that whichever option is chosen, Tarporley should be identified for accommodating further growth to ensure that sustainable sites on the edge of the settlement, such as Eaton Road, can come forward for residential development.  For the reasons stated throughout these representations, Land at Eaton Road represents an ideal opportunity for housing delivery under all three options. Whichever Spatial Strategy Option the Council choose to adopt, these representations have demonstrated that the site is suitable and available, and should be allocated for residential development as part of the emerging plan.

Support

Representation ID: 16834

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Limited

Agent: Asteer Planning

I&O_15731
Option C seeks to focus development around settlements on the railway network or main bus route corridors. This identifies housing growth in Chester for around 3,000 – 5,000 homes. The Site is identified as a potential location for housing growth within this option under ‘CH04’. Taylor Wimpey supports Option C and reiterates that Chester is the most sustainable settlement within the Borough for growth, as reflected by the designation at the top of the settlement hierarchy. The City is the main centre for employment, leisure and transport connections and therefore should accommodate an appropriate level of growth to reflect this. The Site at Parkgate Road lies around 2km north of the city centre of Chester, and has direct access to the main bus routes (via Parkgate Road (A540) and the most immediate access to the rail networks (via Bache Station) of any of the City’s potential growth areas. The Site would therefore provide a logical extension to the settlement and a sustainable pattern of development that supports a level of growth to Chester that will ensure its future vitality.

Support

Representation ID: 16846

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Northern Trust Land Limited

Agent: Savills (UK) Limited

I&O_16583
The most appropriate spatial strategies for CW&C are Options B and C above. To ensure the Local Plan is ambitious and plans to deliver sufficient housing, in accordance with national policy, Option A should be discounted, as retaining the current Green Belt would restrict realistic opportunities to deliver sustainable development in appropriate locations in the Borough. In order to deliver at least 1,928 new homes per year, the Council will need to assess land that is currently within the Green Belt for its potential to deliver sustainable residential development. While the prioritisation of previously developed land for housing development is acknowledged, the Council cannot identify a sufficient supply of available and suitable previously developed land in urban areas that is capable of accommodating the housing requirement. As such, land in the Green Belt must be considered in order to ensure CW&C addresses its local housing need within the Plan period.