Comment

Representation ID: 14846

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bolesworth Estate Co Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15397
Option C would see new homes focused in and around settlements on the railway network, and on main bus route corridors (based on those routes with a bus service of at least one per hour). The following is then stated: For housing development, it includes (amongst other matters): A more distributed pattern of development. Potential for further development in the rural area and in places along bus corridors including: Farndon; Malpas; Tarporley; Tarvin; and Tattenhall. As highlighted under question SS 12, Bolesworth advocates a hybrid approach which would incorporate a blend of spatial Options A, B and C. In respect of Option C, this should also be altered to focus on a wider approach to sustainability (remembering that walking and cycling are at the top of the sustainable travel hierarchy, not public transport). It is equally important for sites to be located in sustainable walking/cycling distances to local amenities.  In the case of Frog Lane, the site is well suited on all fronts/can be considered sustainable all round, noting that: The nearest bus stops are located on Frog Lane, with the number 41 service operating hourly and provides access to local destinations including Whitchurch and Chester (which can be accessed within a 37- minute bus journey). We also repeat our earlier comment that a development of around 400 homes at Frog Lane is of a scale which could deliver enhancements to existing bus services in Tattenhall. Tattenhall Primary School can be accessed within a 10-minute walk of the northern section of the site (via Millenium Mile/Footpath Tattenhall FP6). The Barbour Institute, which comprises the start of the High Street, can be accessed within a 5 minute-walk from the site. Tattenhall Local Centre, which includes facilities such as a pharmacy, pubs and a SPAR, can also be accessed within a 10-minute walk of the northern section of the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 14868

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Stubbs

Agent: Grimster Planning

I&O_15419
It is considered that the strategy should provide an indicative, minimum, housing target for the Main Towns, Larger Villages and Smaller Villages, and the remainder of the rural area. These should only be indicative, and not treated as a ‘cap.’  In respect of remainder of the rural area, it is considered that Option C should be amended to support and facilitate lower levels of growth in the rural parts of the Borough (i.e those parts of the rural area that sit below the existing Local Service Centre tier of the adopted Local Plan), something which the policies of the adopted Local Plan do not currently support and facilitate (save for conversion schemes and rural workers dwellings). 

Comment

Representation ID: 14896

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: The Oulton Estate

Agent: Grimster Planning

I&O_15447
It is considered that the strategy should provide an indicative, minimum, housing target for the Main Towns, Larger Villages and Smaller Villages, and the remainder of the rural area. These should only be indicative, and not treated as a ‘cap.’ In respect of remainder of the rural area, it is considered that Option C should be amended to support and facilitate lower levels of growth in the rural parts of the Borough (i.e those parts of the rural area that sit below the existing Local Service Centre tier of the adopted Local Plan), something which the policies of the adopted Local Plan do not currently support and facilitate (save for conversion schemes and rural workers dwellings). This aligns with our response to Question SS 13.

Comment

Representation ID: 14979

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ainscough Strategic Land

Agent: Turley

I&O_15538
Please refer to response to Question SS 11.

Comment

Representation ID: 15206

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15765
Option C would see new homes focused in and around settlements on the railway network, and on main bus route corridors (based on those routes with a bus service of at least one per hour). For housing development, it includes: A more distributed pattern of development. More modest urban extensions around: Chester; Ellesmere Port; Northwich; and Winsford Smaller settlements with a rail station, such as: Cuddington and Sandiway; Helsby; Frodsham; and Neston and Parkgate would take a bigger role in accommodating development. Total Green Belt release of sites to deliver more than 12,000 homes. Potential for further development in the rural area and in places along bus corridors including: Farndon; Malpas; Tarporley; Tarvin; and Tattenhall. Potential for an enhanced role around rural rail stations including: Acton Bridge; Capenhurst; Delamere; Elton; Hooton; Lostock Gralam; and Mouldsworth. As highlighted under question SS 12, Barratt Redrow advocates a hybrid approach which would combine elements of spatial Options B and C. In respect of Option C, this should be amended to focus on overall sustainability, in recognition that walking and cycling (i.e. Active Travel) are at the top of the sustainable travel hierarchy, above public transport). We highlight the following key points in this respect: Covid has changed travel patterns, with working from home increasingly becoming the norm. Walking and cycling to local amenities is becoming even more important in this context, with less day to day reliance on public transport for longer distance. The aforementioned PINS webinar highlights that improvements to pedestrian routes is the key/top priority to make meaningful modal shift changes. The PINS webinar also highlights the importance of context, high frequency bus routes are not always realistic/feasible in smaller settlements. It is Barratt Redrow’s view that this does not make a development unsustainable with a site’s pedestrian and cycle connectivity to local amenities being more important. NPPF paragraph 110 also recognises the above, noting that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making. In light of the above, and in line with NPPF paragraph 83 which notes how planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, Option C needs to be widened to focus on sustainability in a more holistic manner. Growth should not be solely focused on high frequency public transport corridors and railway stations, as this alone will not achieve genuine modal shift to sustainable travel modes. Proximity to other day to day local amenities, including schools, is equally important.  

Comment

Representation ID: 15249

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Chester Zoo

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15808
Chester Zoo 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. Chester is clearly the priority transport hub in the Borough and should continue to be supported as such going forward. If this more distributed pattern of development was pursued, through  modest urban extensions via both Green Belt release and countryside land, so balancing the geographical expansion of a number of settlements where there is a Grey Belt / Countryside geographic distinction, this would avoid the potential for urban sprawl and such an Option can be favoured.

Comment

Representation ID: 15307

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peel NRE Limited

Agent: Turley

I&O_15866
See response to question SS 12.

Comment

Representation ID: 15396

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15955
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. Particular emphasis needs to me made on the Tier 2 settlements in the eastern part of the Borough, such as Northwich, to ensure investment is directed to such areas and not necessarily monopolised in the western part of the Borough around Chester & Ellesmere Port. If this more distributed pattern of development was pursued, through modest urban extensions via both Green Belt release and countryside land, so balancing the geographical expansion of a number of settlements where there is a Grey Belt / Countryside geographic distinction, this would avoid the potential for urban sprawl and such an Option can be favoured.

Comment

Representation ID: 15461

Received: 21/10/2025

Respondent: Wirral Borough Council

I&O_16020
No comments at this stage

Comment

Representation ID: 15555

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Liberty Properties plc

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_16114
Liberty Properties would consider that Option C has some potential, particularly with reference to smaller settlements with a rail station, such as: Cuddington and Sandiway; Helsby; Frodsham; and Neston and Parkgate taking a bigger role in accommodating development. What needs to be clarified is that these extensions would be accommodated through limited Green Belt release, in addition to areas of open countryside. Particular emphasis needs to me made on key service centres more towards the eastern part of the Borough, such as Cuddington & Sandiway, to ensure investment is directed to such areas and not necessarily monopolised in the western part of the Borough around Chester & Ellesmere Port. If this more distributed pattern of development was pursued, through modest urban extensions via both Green Belt release and countryside land, so balancing the geographical expansion of a number of settlements where there is a Grey Belt / Countryside geographic distinction, this would avoid the potential for urban sprawl and such an Option can be favoured.

Comment

Representation ID: 15631

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shropshire Homes

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_16190
Option C would see new homes focused in and around settlements on the railway network, and on main bus route corridors (based on those routes with a bus service of at least one per hour). The following is then stated: For housing development, it includes: • A more distributed pattern of development. • More modest urban extensions around: Chester; Ellesmere Port; Northwich; and Winsford • Smaller settlements with a rail station, such as: Cuddington and Sandiway; Helsby; Frodsham; and Neston and Parkgate would take a bigger role in accommodating development. • Total Green Belt release of sites to deliver more than 12,000 homes. • Potential for further development in the rural area and in places along bus corridors including: Farndon; Malpas; Tarporley; Tarvin; and Tattenhall. • Potential for an enhanced role around rural rail stations including: Acton Bridge; Capenhurst; Delamere; Elton; Hooton; Lostock Gralam; and Mouldsworth. The Planning Inspectorate recently hosted a webinar3 entitled ‘what is meant by a sustainable location?’. Key points of note include reiterating the fact that walking and cycling are at the top of the sustainable transport hierarchy, followed by public transport. Whilst public transport connectivity/corridors are clearly important, it should not be the sole focus. Instead, the site selection process for each settlement should also heavily focus on a site’s location and its pedestrian and cycle connectivity to existing local amenities (shops, schools etc), which all reduce car trips on a day to day basis. Public transport is clearly helpful for longer distance trips but has to be considered alongside the aim to reduce day to day trips to local facilities. Shropshire Homes consider Option C should be altered to focus on a wider approach to sustainability (remembering that walking and cycling are at the top of the sustainable travel hierarchy, not public transport). We highlight the following key points in this respect: • Covid has changed travel patterns, with working from home practices now the norm. Walking and cycling to local amenities is becoming even more important in this context, with less every day reliance on public transport for trips further afield. • The aforementioned PINS webinar highlights that improvements to pedestrian routes is the key/top priority to make meaningful modal shift changes. • The PINS webinar also highlights the importance of context – high frequency bus routes are not always realistic/feasible in smaller settlements. It is Shropshire Homes’ view that this alone does not make a development unsustainable – a site’s pedestrian and cycle connectivity to local amenities is equally, in fact more, important. • NPPF paragraph 110 also recognises the above – noting that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making. In light of the above, and in line with NPPF paragraph 83 which notes how planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, option c needs to be widened to focus on sustainability in a more holistic manner. Growth should not just be focused near high frequency public transport corridors and railway stations – as this alone will not make meaningful headway in achieving a genuine modal shift to sustainable travel modes. Section 5.1 of the consultation paper notes how it may be necessary to identify new areas or broad locations for development if not enough land can be identified within settlements. A series of maps of potential growth areas on the edge of the city, main towns, market towns and larger villages are then presented – which we comment on further in subsequent chapters of this Representation.

Comment

Representation ID: 15846

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16405
Ultimately to ensure a sustainable pattern of residential development over the plan period public transport availability must be taken into account alongside the availability of local services and facilities. It should not be considered in isolation. Again, the required new Local Plan Transport Assessment should clearly consider the level of housing required to support the Bus network in the rural area to maintain and improve its services in this important part of the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 15935

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16494
Ultimately to ensure a sustainable pattern of residential development over the plan period public transport availability must be taken into account alongside the availability of local services and facilities. It should not be considered in isolation. Again, the required new Local Plan Transport Assessment should clearly consider the level of housing required to support the Bus network in the rural area to maintain and improve its services in this important part of the Borough.

Support

Representation ID: 16430

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Urenco

Agent: Axis P.E.D Ltd

I&O_12378
UUK’s responses to the above topic questions are interlinked, so these have been answered in single response below.
The Complex is in a sustainable location, being adjacent to Ellesmere Port and located adjacent to an existing train station (Capenhurst). Therefore, a local plan strategy that combines Option B and Option C would more closely align with UUK’s development ambitions.
If the Council was to remove the Complex from the Green Belt, the agreed option must ensure the Complex is not referenced as a commercial site in the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 16459

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Grimster Planning

I&O_14540
It is considered that the strategy should provide an indicative, minimum, housing target for the Main Towns,
Larger Villages and Smaller Villages, and the remainder of the rural area. These should only be indicative, and not treated as a ‘cap.’

In respect of remainder of the rural area, it is considered that Option C should be amended to support and facilitate lower levels of growth in the rural parts of the Borough (i.e those parts of the rural area that sit below the existing Local Service Centre tier of the adopted Local Plan), something which the policies of the adopted Local Plan do not currently support and facilitate (save for conversion schemes and rural workers dwellings). This aligns with our response to Question SS 13.