Comment

Representation ID: 10694

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Farndon Parish Council

I&O_11192
Yes, for clarity, these two matters should be addressed separately.

Comment

Representation ID: 10798

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_11296
Yes, the Local Plan should include separate policies for countryside and Green Belt areas, as they serve distinct planning functions and are subject to different national policy frameworks and local considerations. Maintaining two distinct policies will also improve clarity for applicants, decision-makers, and communities, especially as the new Local Plan will be a single document.

Comment

Representation ID: 10892

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs . Hall

Agent: Urban Imprint Limited

I&O_11390
The broad principles set out within the I&O document under GB1 appear to be sensible and compliant with the approach advocated by national policy. However, as previously mentioned, national policy agendas suggest a more pragmatic and flexible approach be taken to decision-making – especially where previously developed sites (the tests of which have been relaxed to encourage the redevelopment of such sites) or sites adjacent to existing settlements might be concerned. As such our client would wish to see this more clearly reflected within local policy, and as such it is suggested that the existing policies are not ‘rolled forward’. Our client welcomes the recognition of grey belt as part of this policy but would be opposed to rigid criteria in this respect – any policy should rightly and properly allow the decision maker to arrive at a decision on a case-by-case basis. It is acknowledged that national development management policies could make this policy broadly redundant.

Comment

Representation ID: 10961

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11459
No

Comment

Representation ID: 11173

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Heine Planning

I&O_11671
yes-it is very confusing to have this combined policy given the need to defer to nppf for green belt areas. can you not simply defer to NPPF for green Belt policy?

Comment

Representation ID: 11312

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Town Council

I&O_11810
Yes 

Comment

Representation ID: 11467

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Steve Bowle

I&O_11965
Yes - need a policy that says no housing

Comment

Representation ID: 11638

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12136
It doesn’t really matter. What matters is the policy content – see our response to Q GB 1 above.

Comment

Representation ID: 11745

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_12243
The separation of the policies will enable a bespoke approach to the Green Belt, increasing protection and placing greater importance on the purposes of the Green Belt (particularly the prevention of urban sprawl, coalescence of settlements, and protection of historic character). In turn, policy in relation to the countryside can be expanded to consider additional appropriate uses, and to place importance on the visual and ecological importance of the countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 12461

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Carden Group

I&O_12978
Policy STRAT9 in adopted Local Plan combines (and in fact conflates) Green Belt and countryside policy. This confuses the appropriate policy tests for two different policy areas. Policy STRAT9 creates a planning paradox whereby if a small village was located within the Green Belt (and washed over because it has no settlement boundary), development would be acceptable in principle because it could amount to limited infilling in a village and/or redevelopment of previously developed land. This approach is consistent with the approach in paragraph 150, 154e and 154g of the Framework. The Framework does not say that settlements in the Green Belt must have a settlement boundary – this a different approach from the previous guidance in PPG2. However, STRAT9 does not permit development in small villages in the open countryside which do not have settlement boundaries (but which would be washed over if in the Green Belt). Instead, it treats them as countryside. This approach is far too simplistic. There are many small villages in CWaC which are clearly not countryside and where development should be permissible as infill or appropriate scale development. Consequently, STRAT9 is more restrictive towards development in the countryside and rural communities than development in the Green Belt. Development in the Green Belt is also capable of compliance with the development plan through the demonstration of very special circumstances – a policy test not allowed for in the countryside. The new local plan should treat countryside and Green Belt separately and should allow for appropriate development in or on the edge of villages outside the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12876

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Beswick

I&O_13395
Yes, these areas are invaluable and should be protected at all costs. Given their importance, a separate policy protecting the green belt should be proposed.  

Comment

Representation ID: 13348

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Manor Park)

Agent: Carden Group

I&O_13867
Policy STRAT9 in adopted Local Plan combines (and in fact conflates) Green Belt and countryside policy. This confuses the appropriate policy tests for two different policy areas. Policy STRAT9 creates a planning paradox whereby if a small village was located within the Green Belt (and washed over because it has no settlement boundary), development would be acceptable in principle because it could amount to limited infilling in a village and/or redevelopment of previously developed land. This approach is consistent with the approach in paragraph 150, 154e and 154g of the Framework. The Framework does not say that settlements in the Green Belt must have a settlement boundary – this a different approach from the previous guidance in PPG2. However, STRAT9 does not permit development in small villages in the open countryside which do not have settlement boundaries (but which would be washed over if in the Green Belt). Instead, it treats them as countryside. This approach is far too simplistic. There are many small villages in CWaC which are clearly not countryside and where development should be permissible as infill or appropriate scale development. Consequently, STRAT9 is more restrictive towards development in the countryside and rural communities than development in the Green Belt. Development in the Green Belt is also capable of compliance with the development plan through the demonstration of very special circumstances – a policy test not allowed for in the countryside. The new local plan should treat countryside and Green Belt separately and should allow for appropriate development in or on the edge of villages outside the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 13985

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

Agent: Carden Group

I&O_14505
Policy STRAT9 in adopted Local Plan combines (and in fact conflates) Green Belt and countryside policy. This confuses the appropriate policy tests for two different policy areas. Policy STRAT9 creates a planning paradox whereby if a small village was located within the Green Belt (and washed over because it has no settlement boundary), development would be acceptable in principle because it could amount to limited infilling in a village and/or redevelopment of previously developed land. This approach is consistent with the approach in paragraph 150, 154e and 154g of the Framework. The Framework does not say that settlements in the Green Belt must have a settlement boundary – this a different approach from the previous guidance in PPG2. However, STRAT9 does not permit development in small villages in the open countryside which do not have settlement boundaries (but which would be washed over if in the Green Belt). Instead, it treats them as countryside. This approach is far too simplistic. There are many small villages in CWaC which are clearly not countryside and where development should be permissible as infill or appropriate scale development. Consequently, STRAT9 is more restrictive towards development in the countryside and rural communities than development in the Green Belt. Development in the Green Belt is also capable of compliance with the development plan through the demonstration of very special circumstances – a policy test not allowed for in the countryside. The new local plan should treat countryside and Green Belt separately and should allow for appropriate development in or on the edge of villages outside the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 14045

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Cogshall Lane)

Agent: Carden Group

I&O_14582
Policy STRAT9 in adopted Local Plan combines (and in fact conflates) Green Belt and countryside policy. This confuses the appropriate policy tests for two different policy areas. Policy STRAT9 creates a planning paradox whereby if a small village was located within the Green Belt (and washed over because it has no settlement boundary), development would be acceptable in principle because it could amount to limited infilling in a village and/or redevelopment of previously developed land. This approach is consistent with the approach in paragraph 150, 154e and 154g of the Framework. The Framework does not say that settlements in the Green Belt must have a settlement boundary – this a different approach from the previous guidance in PPG2. However, STRAT9 does not permit development in small villages in the open countryside which do not have settlement boundaries (but which would be washed over if in the Green Belt). Instead, it treats them as countryside. This approach is far too simplistic. There are many small villages in CWaC which are clearly not countryside and where development should be permissible as infill or appropriate scale development. Consequently, STRAT9 is more restrictive towards development in the countryside and rural communities than development in the Green Belt. Development in the Green Belt is also capable of compliance with the development plan through the demonstration of very special circumstances – a policy test not allowed for in the countryside. The new local plan should treat countryside and Green Belt separately and should allow for appropriate development in or on the edge of villages outside the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 14247

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Critchley

I&O_14791
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 14459

Received: 05/09/2025

Respondent: Councillor Simon Eardley

I&O_15004
Yes, this is explicitly linked to the green belt, although a policy for ‘countryside’ should not be conditional on areas also being in the green belt (many aren’t).

Comment

Representation ID: 14682

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Homes North West Ltd

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_15232
The separation of the policies will enable a bespoke approach to the Green Belt, increasing protection and placing greater importance on the purposes of the Green Belt (particularly the prevention of urban sprawl, coalescence of settlements, and protection of historic character). In turn, policy that relates to the countryside can be expanded to consider additional appropriate uses, and place further emphasis on the visual and ecological importance of the countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 14762

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: The Smith Family

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_15312
The separation of the policies will enable a bespoke approach to the Green Belt, increasing protection and placing greater importance on the purposes of the Green Belt (particularly the prevention of urban sprawl, coalescence of settlements, and protection of historic character). In turn, policy that relates to the countryside can be expanded to consider additional appropriate uses, and place further emphasis on the visual and ecological importance of the countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 15072

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Garden Village Ltd

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_15631
Yes, the Local Plan should include separate policies for countryside and Green Belt areas, as they serve distinct planning functions and are subject to different national policy frameworks and local considerations. Maintaining two distinct policies will also improve clarity for applicants, decision-makers, and communities, especially as the new Local Plan will be a single document.

Comment

Representation ID: 15120

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: StanleyRed Developments Ltd

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_15679
Yes, the Local Plan should include separate policies for countryside and Green Belt areas, as they serve distinct planning functions and are subject to different national policy frameworks and local considerations. Maintaining two distinct policies will also improve clarity for applicants, decision-makers, and communities, especially as the new Local Plan will be a single document.

Comment

Representation ID: 15159

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Views Holdings Limited

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_15718
Yes, the Local Plan should include separate policies for countryside and Green Belt areas, as they serve distinct planning functions and are subject to different national policy frameworks and local considerations. Maintaining two distinct policies will also improve clarity for applicants, decision-makers, and communities, especially as the new Local Plan will be a single document.

Comment

Representation ID: 15260

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Chester Zoo

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15819
It is considered that there should be separate policies for the countryside and Green Belt in light of the changes to national policy and the updated exceptions to development within designated Green Belt areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 15323

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peel NRE Limited

Agent: Turley

I&O_15882
Peel considers that there should be separate policies for Green Belt and countryside to reflect the different purposes of each. The relevant policies should be reflective of national policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 15365

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Blueoak Estates

Agent: Paul Nellist

I&O_15924
Blueoak is supportive of an approach to separate Green Belt and Countryside policy definitions.

Comment

Representation ID: 15403

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barlow Trust Fund

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_15962
The Trust will welcome updating Green Belt policy to reflect the change in national policy including the approach to development on grey belt land. In consideration of support for Option B (in varied form with allowance for small scale release of Green Belt), they would also welcome a Green Belt review which indicates areas which are washed over by Green Belt designation, but do not contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt or the surrounding area., to be considered for small scale releases. It is considered that there should be separate policies for the countryside and Green Belt in light of the changes to national policy and the updated exceptions to development within designated Green Belt areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 15572

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Liberty Properties plc

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_16131
Liberty Properties will welcome updating Green Belt policy to reflect the change in national policy including the approach to development on grey belt land. In consideration of support for Option B (in varied form with allowance for small scale release of Green Belt), they would also welcome a Green Belt review which indicates areas which are washed over by Green Belt designation, but do not contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt or the surrounding area, to be considered for small scale releases. It is considered that there should be separate policies for the countryside and Green Belt in light of the changes to national policy and the updated exceptions to development within designated Green Belt areas.   

Comment

Representation ID: 15601

Received: 21/10/2025

Respondent: Wirral Borough Council

I&O_16160
Yes, to reflect their different status in terms of national planning policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 15761

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Northern Powerhouse Land Ltd

Agent: Asteer Planning

I&O_16320
It is NPL’s view that there should be a separate policy for Countryside and Green Belt areas. NPL reserves the right to comment further on any policy relating to development within the countryside at the appropriate time.

Comment

Representation ID: 15797

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hilbre Overlea Ltd

Agent: Asteer Planning

I&O_16356
Hilbre Overlea Ltd is supportive of an approach to separate Green Belt and Countryside policy definitions.

Comment

Representation ID: 15799

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry and Hilary Markham

Agent: Susan Jones Consultancy

I&O_16358
My clients have instructed me to contact you in connection with  Questions GB1 - GB5 in relation to suggest policy approach GB1. The view is taken that there should be separate policies for the Green Belt as opposed to open countryside given the recent introduction of national policy relating to "Grey Belt". In the case of my client's property they reside in the village of Eaton and some of their land falls within the settlement boundary with the balance  just beyond it. Recently my clients have been successful on appeal in securing a Lawful Development Certificate ( see attached appeal decision and the associated certificate and plan with the subject land edged in red). That land lawfully forms part of their domestic curtilage. It is a sizable plot and relates well to the rest of the village and local footpath network.  Given the current significant shortfall in housing land supply throughout the Borough, the importance of protecting the Green Belt wherever possible and the immediate proximity of the subject land to Eaton village primary school ( which my clients understand has spare capacity ) it is considered that it would make an excellent site for new residential development (especially to accommodate families) which can be supported by local facilities such as the school, local church and community centre thereby resulting in a better balance of different  age groups residing within the village. It is therefore considered important that the countryside policy is drafted in such a way to facilitate the development of small sites for further housing development  in sustainable locations such as this which would in turn support existing local facilities for the wellbeing of the local community as a whole.The fact that some of the site falls within the Eaton conservation area and the rest within it's setting should not be regarded as a negative factor in the development of this site. I am of the opinion  that any proposed scheme can be designed so that at the very least it would preserve the character of the conservation area and in all likelihood enhance it.