Comment

Representation ID: 163

Received: 14/07/2025

Respondent: Mike Mather

I&O_185
Sort of..... I'm looking to free up our [ex] family home and downsize but I feel the typre of home we require is not considered. There are many people like us who'll end up staying in their family homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 756

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_860
The policy doesn’t state a scale of development to which this policy would relate. For example, if a scheme for 5 houses were brought forward, it would be difficult and potentially financially unfeasible to provide a mixture of type and tenure of homes within such a small site. In addition, this doesn’t allow for a small site to be entirely 2/3 bed bungalows for example, which is maybe what is required in a specific area.

Comment

Representation ID: 1307

Received: 02/08/2025

Respondent: Dr & Mrs JF & GM Higgs

I&O_1412
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1657

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board

Agent: NHS Property Services Ltd

I&O_1767
Housing We note that at paragraph 19.11 the need to undertake a Housing Needs Assessment to provide the basis for the Local Plan and that specific groups will be considered, such as students at paragraph 19.15. In undertaking further work on local housing needs, we suggest the Council consider the need for affordable housing for key workers, and in particular, NHS staff given the levels of affordability in the authority area. We would be happy to meet to discuss this matter further prior to Regulation 19 stage. The sustainability of the NHS is largely dependent on the recruitment and retention of its workforce. Most NHS staff need to be anchored at a specific workplace or within a specific geography to carry out their role. When staff cannot afford to rent or purchase suitable accommodation within reasonable proximity to their workplace, this has an impact on the ability of the NHS to recruit and retain staff. Housing affordability and availability can play a significant role in determining people’s choices about where they work, and even the career paths they choose to follow. As the population grows in areas of new housing development, additional health services are required, meaning the NHS must grow its workforce to adequately serve population growth. Ensuring that NHS staff have access to suitable housing at an affordable price within reasonable commuting distance of the communities they serve is an important factor in supporting the delivery of high-quality local healthcare services. We recommend that the Council: Engage with local NHS partners such as the local Integrated Care Board (ICB), NHS Trusts and other relevant Integrated Care System (ICS) partners. Ensure that the local need for affordable housing for NHS staff is factored into housing needs assessments, and any other relevant evidence base studies that inform the local plan (for example employment or other economic policies). Consider site selection and site allocation policies in relation to any identified need for affordable housing for NHS staff, particularly where sites are near large healthcare employers.

Comment

Representation ID: 1988

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

I&O_2104
The HBF understands the need for a mix of house types, sizes and tenures and is generally supportive of providing a range and choice of homes to meet the needs of the local area. It is, however, important that any policy is workable and ensures that housing delivery will not be compromised or stalled due to: overly prescriptive requirements; requiring a mix that does not consider the scale of the site; requiring a mix that does not consider the viability of the site; or requiring the applicant to provide significant amounts of additional evidence. The HBF would expect the Council to ensure that the policy is applied flexibly and makes allowance for home builders to provide alternative housing mixes as is required by the market. The PPG [1] sets out how custom and self-build housing needs can be assessed. The PPG [2] also sets out how local authorities can increase the number of planning permissions which are suitable for self and custom build housing. These include supporting neighbourhood planning groups to include sites in their plans, effective joint working, using Council owned land and working with Homes England. The HBF considers that alternative policy mechanisms could be used to ensure a reliable and sufficient provision of self & custom build opportunities across the Borough including allocation of small and medium scale sites specifically for self & custom build housing and permitting self & custom build outside but adjacent to settlement boundaries on sustainable sites especially if the proposal would round off the developed form. The HBF is generally supportive of providing homes that are suitable to meet the needs of older people and disabled people. Whilst there is general support for such development, the HBF would recommend that the Council should be more proactive in working with providers of this type of development to identify appropriate sites for allocation. This approach would provide far more certainty to the council that the need for such accommodation will be met in full. The HBF considers that the Council should note the difference between homes suitable for older people and specialist housing for older people, and the difference in need and demand for these types of homes. The PPG [3] states that the need to provide for older people is critical, and that offering older people a better choice of accommodation to suit their changing needs can help them live independently for longer, feel more connected to their communities and help reduce costs to the social care and health systems. It goes on to state that Plan-making authorities should set clear policies to address the housing needs of groups with particular needs such as older and disabled people and that Plans need to provide for specialist housing for older people where a need exists [4] . It also notes that allocating sites can provide greater certainty for developers and encourage the provision of sites in suitable locations. As such, the HBF considers that the Council needs to work closely with the providers of older persons housing to identify appropriate sites or to provide appropriate policies. The Council also suggest that if justified by the evidence a new policy will be brought into require national space standards. The Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) as introduced by Government, are intended to be optional and can only be introduced where there is a clear need, and they retain development viability. As such they were introduced on a ‘need to have’ rather than a ‘nice to have’ basis. PPG [5] identifies the type of evidence required to introduce such a policy. It states that ‘where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas: Need, Viability and Timing. The Council will need robust justifiable evidence to introduce the NDSS, based on the criteria set out above. The HBF considers that if the Government had expected all properties to be built to NDSS that they would have made these standards mandatory not optional. The HBF notes that there is a direct relationship between unit size, cost per square metre (sqm), selling price per sqm and affordability. The HBF recommends that the policy approach should recognise that customers have different budgets and aspirations. An inflexible policy approach to NDSS for all new dwellings will impact on affordability and affect customer choice. Well-designed dwellings below NDSS can provide a good, functional home. Smaller dwellings play a valuable role in meeting specific needs for both open market and affordable home ownership housing. The introduction of the NDSS for all dwellings may mean customers purchasing larger homes in floor space but with bedrooms less suited to their housing needs with the unintended consequences of potentially increasing overcrowding and reducing the quality of their living environment. The Council should focus on good design and useable space to ensure that dwellings are fit for purpose rather than focusing on NDSS. [ 1] PPG ID: 67-003-20190722 [2] PPG ID: 57-025-20210508 [3] PPG ID: 63-001-20190626 [4] PPG ID: 63-006-20190626 & ID: 63-012-20190626 [5] PPG ID: 56-020-20150327

Comment

Representation ID: 2084

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2204
MCI acknowledges the need for a mix of house types, sizes and tenures and is generally supportive of providing a range and choice of homes to meet the needs of the local area. Any policy in relation to housing mix should include flexibility to ensure that it is workable and ensures that housing delivery will not be compromised or stalled due to overly prescriptive requirements. The policy should allow evidence to be submitted to justify alternative housing mixes as the market requires. As the Council will be aware the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) introduced by Government, are intended to be optional and can only be introduced where there is a clear need, and they retain development viability. They were introduced on a ‘need to have’ rather than a ‘nice to have’ basis. The PPG  (ID: 56-020-20150327) identifies the type of evidence required to introduce such a policy. It states that “ where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies” . The Council will need robust justifiable evidence to introduce the NDSS, based on the criteria set out above. In accordance with the PPG (ID: 56-001-20190626), local planning authorities are expected to establish clear and robust policies to address the specific housing needs of older and disabled people, including the delivery of specialist accommodation where evidence of need exists. Furthermore, the PPG (63-006-20190626 and ID: 63-012-20190626) highlights that the allocation of sites for such provision can offer greater certainty to developers and facilitate delivery in sustainable and accessible locations. It is therefore incumbent upon the Council to engage proactively with providers of all types of older persons’ housing (including but not limited to retirement living, sheltered housing, extra care, and bungalows) to identify suitable sites including integration of older persons’ housing on larger sites to enable those who wish to remain in the area the opportunity to downsize at an appropriate time and to ensure that the Local Plan includes appropriate policy mechanisms to support delivery. The introduction of policies requiring M4(2) and M4(3) standards should be fully evidenced and justified applying the criteria set out in the PPG (ID: 56-007-20150327). The evidence produced should include a local assessment for Cheshire West and Chester and also consideration of the implications for proposed site allocations in relation to site specific factors such as flooding, site topography and other circumstances where M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings may not be achievable or viable. There should also be an appropriate transition period included within the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 2142

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Steen

I&O_2262
NOTE - ‘specialist housing’ should not be limited to the old person or the physically disabled, is should also include housing for those who have learning disabilities that require supervised living.

Comment

Representation ID: 2492

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Clarke

I&O_2643
I agree. Mixed Housing offers better outcomes than designated specialist housing confined to closed areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 2611

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Anchor

I&O_2764
Anchor is England’s largest provider of specialist housing and care for older people. We welcome a policy which supports the delivery of housing for older people that neither excludes nor favours one type of specialist housing over another, as currently proposed. We urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to include a dedicated older persons’ housing policy with a clear target for the number of homes to be delivered over the plan period.  This could either be a numerical target or a percentage of the overall housing requirement. National planning policy is clear that planning policies should reflect the need for different types of housing to meet the diverse needs of older people - including retirement housing, housing with care, and care homes. Although a housing needs assessment is pending, a significant shortfall is anticipated. The Older People’s Housing Taskforce’s Our Future Homes report recommends building 30,000 to 50,000 later living homes annually, yet only around 7,000 are currently delivered each year. The Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan should plan to meet the identified need. Anchor operates three older persons’ schemes in Cheshire West and Chester: two provide 48 social rent homes, with waiting lists matching capacity, and one provides 16 leasehold homes for ownership. Demand is high and increasing supply would ease pressure on the housing register and waiting lists.  We note the intent to be more prescriptive about property size and tenure mixes. While we support an evidence-based approach, future policy should allow flexibility for older persons’ housing. Anchor’s well-designed developments typically consist of single apartment buildings with around 70 high-quality affordable (social rent) homes. Mixing tenures within one apartment building is generally unfeasible, as sales (market or shared ownership) alongside social rent cause market challenges and tensions. Additionally, social rent homes for older people are mainly one-bedroom, as two-bedroom homes are hard to let due to the under-occupancy charge and the predominance of single-person households. Policy flexibility is essential to ensure the viability and successful delivery of older persons’ housing. We also recommend Cheshire West and Chester Council make specific allocations for older persons’ housing to meet the identified need. Rather than requiring a percentage of homes to meet M4(2) or M4(3) standards – which do not specifically cater to older people and are not typically reserved for them - we recommend that a percentage of homes on allocated sites are required to be specialist homes for older people, meeting one of the definitions in national planning policy. When making allocations, consideration should be given to the minimum viable number of older persons’ homes, which in Anchor’s experience is at least 65.

Comment

Representation ID: 2648

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: McCarthy Stone and Churchill Living

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

I&O_2801
Although we support the policy approach currently set out in HO1 and in the existing local plan especially with regard to older persons housing, we would like to draw to the council’s attention that the revised NPPF looks at delivering a sufficient supply of homes, Paragraph 63 identifies within this context, that the size, and type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies including older people. This includes those who require retirement housing, housing-with-care and care homes. It is noted that an up to date housing market assessment is yet to be commissioned. This is likely to show that there is a large need for various different kinds of specialist housing for older people including retirement housing, housing-with-care and care homes and these should be supported separately. In June 2019 the PPG was updated to include a section on Housing for Older and Disabled People, recognising the critical need to provide housing for older people. Paragraph 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626 states: “ The need to provide housing for older people is critical . People are living longer lives and the proportion of older people in the population is increasing. In mid-2016 there were 1.6 million people aged 85 and over; by mid-2041 this is projected to double to 3.2 million . Offering older people a better choice of accommodation to suit their changing needs can help them live independently for longer, feel more connected to their communities and help reduce costs to the social care and health systems. Therefore, an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs is something to be considered from the early stages of plan-making through to decision-taking ” (emphasis added). Paragraph 003 Reference ID: 63-003-20190626 recognises that: “ the health and lifestyles of older people will differ greatly, as will their housing needs, which can range from accessible and adaptable general needs housing to specialist housing with high levels of care and support .” In the recently published Older Persons Housing Task Force (dated 26th November 2024) it is highlighted that there is a misunderstanding of the benefits of older persons housing, including the impacts to the NHS. Extra Care Charitable Trust have commissioned a report which shows the benefits to older persons from improved physical and mental health in retirement communities, resulting in cost savings to the NHS. The independent study undertaken by Aston and Lancaster Universities1 demonstrates the following findings: Annual NHS savings of 38% per person 46% reduction in routine and regular GP visits Significant improvement in the level of exercise done by residents (75%) Reduction in loneliness with 86.5% of residents acknowledging they were ‘never or hardly ever’ lonely. 14.8% reduction in depressive symptoms amongst residents after three years enable residents to live independent for longer. The Older Persons Housing Taskforce identifies that most senior citizens (over 90%) live in mainstream housing which is often unsuitable for later living, with only 9% having suitable features for individuals with mobility difficulties. It is also identified that 1 in 5 senior citizens live in poverty and in non-suitable housing, which comes at a significant cost to the NHS, estimated to be £1.4 billion per year. Similar findings are also reflected in “‘ Healthier and Happier’ An analysis of the fiscal and wellbeing benefits of building more homes for later living ” by WPI Strategy for Homes for Later Living which explores the savings that the government and individuals could expect to make if more older people in the UK could access specialist forms of accommodation. A further benefit of the provision of housing for older people is the choice it offers the market and the ability for residents to right size / downsize. In many cases, older residents under occupy family homes once their grown up children have left to form their own households. A recent report ’ Too Little, Too Late?’ (June 2020) sets out that downsizing is key to tackling the national housing crisis. It acknowledges that under occupation is greatest among the elderly population but current housing stock in the UK limits their options. If more family homes are freed up by downsizing, the benefits would be felt across the housing market, with families being able to ‘upsize’ and smaller homes becoming available for first time buyers. This is further supported by a report ‘ Chain Reaction ’ (August 2020) which finds: Circa 3 million older people in the UK aged 65+ want to downsize. If those that wanted to were able to do so, this would free up nearly 2 million spare bedrooms, predominantly in three bedroom homes with gardens, ideally suited for young families with children. The chain impact would be a major boost for first time buyers with roughly 2 in every 3 retirement properties built releasing homes suitable for first time buyers. The council should also note that it is common for Local Authorities to confuse the needs of ‘wheelchair users’ and accessible and adaptable homes with the needs of older people in the community. A supportive local planning policy framework will be crucial in increasing the delivery of specialist older persons’ housing and it should be acknowledged that although adaptable and accessible housing can assist it does not remove the need for specific older person’s housing. Housing particularly built to M4(3) standard may serve to institutionalise an older person’s scheme reducing independence contrary to the ethos of older persons and particularly extra care housing. Older people’s housing and particularly extra care housing should therefore be incorporated into the emerging Local Plan separately to adaptable and accessible housing and not confused with it. Whilst we acknowledge that PPG Paragraph 003 Reference ID: 63-003-20190626 recognises that “the health and lifestyles of older people will differ greatly, as will their housing needs, which can range from accessible and adaptable general needs housing to specialist housing with high levels of care and support ’, the council should note that ensuring that residents have the ability to stay in their homes for longer is not, in itself, an appropriate manner of meeting the housing needs of older people. Adaptable houses do not provide the on-site support, care and companionship of specialist older persons’ housing developments nor do they enable older people to downsize and thus providing the wider community benefits such as releasing under occupied family housing as well as savings to the public purse by reducing the stress of health and social care budgets. The recently published Healthier and Happier Report by WPI Strategy (September 2019) calculated that the average person living in specialist housing for older people saves the NHS and social services £3,490 per year. A supportive local planning policy framework will be crucial in increasing the delivery of specialist older persons’ housing and it should be acknowledged that although adaptable housing can assist it does not remove the need for specific older person’s housing. We would also like to remind the council of the increased emphasis on Local Plan viability testing in Paragraph 58 of the NPPF and that the PPG states that “ The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan making stage. Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic, and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan ” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 10-002-20190509). M4 2 and 3 Housing has a cost implication and may serve to reduce the number of dwellings and further reduce viability. The council should ensure that any requirement is costed appropriately within any viability assessment. Thus, a range of different types of specialist housing for older people needs to be planned for as detailed in our response to HO2. 1 https://www.extracare.org.uk/news/research-finds-older-people-less-anxious-more-active-and-less-likely-to-fall-in-retirement-communities/

Comment

Representation ID: 2668

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Cholmondeley Estate

Agent: Savills (L & P) Ltd

I&O_2821
The Issues and Options document sets out that the current Local Plan policies in relation to the mix and type of new housing will be substantially amended to reflect the emerging Housing Needs Assessment. The new policy approach will provide detailed requirements for sizes, types and tenures of housing, which will be based on the Needs Assessment. Savills is generally supportive of the need to provide a range and choice of homes to meet the needs of local areas. However, it is also important that any policy ensures that housing delivery will not be compromised or stalled due to overly prescriptive requirements. The policy approach to housing mix should consider the scale and viability of sites. The housing mix policy should also be applied flexibly and should make allowance for homes to be provided as required by the market. The Estate commissioned Cheshire Community Action to undertake an assessment of Housing and Economic Needs, dated December 2022. The Report assessed the key factors affecting the communities and businesses that reside within and surrounding the Cholmondeley Estate; with a focus on housing and the local economy in the context of rural areas. It summarises that most housing tenures are unaffordable across the area, particularly for those who are employed by local businesses. Building energy efficient housing is highlighted as key to affordability. The majority of local employees are commuting considerable distances and a lack of affordable accommodation in the area is linked to recruitment difficulties. The report concluded that there were in December 2022 nearly 200 households in need of housing within and surrounding the Cholmondeley Estate. Hence, the need to ensure that any new housing policies consider the needs of people living within rural areas in terms of size and types of tenures.

Comment

Representation ID: 2942

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Castle Green Homes

I&O_3116
Any policy that prescribes a particular type and/or mix of housing should be evidence-based and location-specific.  It would not be appropriate to apply the same housing requirements across the entire borough as the needs will vary in different locations, for example in a Town Centre compared to an edge of settlement location.  The policy should also include suitable wording to allow for variation where it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that local circumstances support this. Viability will also be an important consideration and a suitable wording should be included in the policy to allow for a variation to the housing mix where it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that a policy-compliant mix would not be viable. Flexibility should also be included to avoid potential conflict with housing mix policies in an adopted Neighbourhood Plan, with clear guidance as to which of the policies would take precedent. The Council have included National Space Standards Evidence within its list of housing evidence to be prepared at paragraph 19.10 and Policy HO1 references that a new policy will be introduced requiring these standards, should this be justified by the evidence.  Nationally Described Space Standards should only be required where there is a clear need; however, site specific circumstances should always still be taken into consideration within the decision making process. 

Comment

Representation ID: 3102

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: National Highways

I&O_3276
Suggested Policy Approach The provision of clearer policies on the housing mix, tenure, and location will enable a mixed-profile of developments to come forward within the Borough and is supported by National Highways. It demonstrates the potential for a reduction in vehicular trips as more mixed-density developments, located in town centres and through Neighbourhood Plans, are provided with active mode and public transport links. Policy HO1: Housing By promoting a diverse housing mix in accessible locations and discouraging isolated rural development, Policy HO1 may help reduce car dependency and support more sustainable travel patterns. This may ease pressure on the SRN by encouraging housing growth in areas better served by public transport and active travel infrastructure. This aligns with proposed transport policies identified within the Local Plan document, and also the strategic goals of Circular 01/2022. We are supportive of this approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 3269

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Antony Fairbanks

I&O_3443
No

Comment

Representation ID: 3407

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

Agent: Gary Halman Land and Planning Limited

I&O_3581
Any policy which sets out specific dwelling types/mix of units (for example, the number or percentage of 1-2 bedroom dwellings, as mentioned in the policy) must also ensure that such a prescriptive approach does not override the need for a scheme to have regard to the nature and character of the settlement in which it is located. Any drive for a certain mix should always be subservient to the need to ensure the scheme is in character with its setting.

Comment

Representation ID: 3493

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: VELUX Company Ltd.

I&O_3667
Yes, we broadly support the suggested policy approach. However, we believe it could be strengthened by recognising the opportunities presented by denser, more compact forms of development. These can: support more active, inclusive communities by prioritising human-scaled, accessible infrastructure and community facilities; contribute to carbon-neutral living by reducing the amount of infrastructure required and lowering embodied carbon in construction; and help preserve valued green spaces. Design solutions that make more efficient use of existing building volumes—for example, by expanding living space within the roof structure—allow additional bedrooms or habitable areas to be delivered on the same land plot, without compromising room sizes or overall living conditions. This approach provides flexibility to accommodate a wider range of housing needs while maintaining quality and protecting open land.

Comment

Representation ID: 3726

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3908
The development of housing on green belt land should be in exceptional cases and then only with 70 percentage supply of affordable housing. This should apply to all developments no matter the number of houses built if 3 and above

Comment

Representation ID: 4007

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Hooke

I&O_4206
Yes. Social housing very important to be included in developments

Comment

Representation ID: 4164

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Martin Bell

HO1
I&O_4393
A local housing needs assessment for each Settlement  should be encouraged and given priority over an assessment of mix and type and specialist housing requirements for a larger area, eg.County wide or the Rural area where the local assessment has been completed to agreed guidelines and is no more than say 5 years old. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4233

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4462
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4366

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Biernacki

I&O_4595
I agree prioritising housing for young people and families and older people downsizing is the right thing to do, and I would want that explicit in our plan so that when builders apply to build other styles and types of housing then planning has a basis from which to respond, something firmer than allowing them to build housing outside what we definitely need with a tiny bit of what we need to satisfy less firm planning allowances. One area, similar to older people downsizing I've seen no mention or reference to care homes or supported living accommodation, which will also need consideration given the ageing population locally.

Comment

Representation ID: 4373

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Spare

I&O_4602
The Local Plan states: We need to do further technical work to assess the size and type of homes we need and what tenure of homes we should provide, but we are aware of the unaffordability of housing in parts of Cheshire West and how many young people and those on lower incomes struggle to access the housing market.   The Davenham Neighbourhood Plan includes a study of the number and variety of new dwellings required in the village.  Starter homes and additional bungalows are required.  The total number of new dwellings should be less than 100.  NOR 6,7 and 8 comprise an aggregate of more than 2200.  The prospect of local employment increasing to sustain this number of new households is remote and exemplifies the mismatch between the proposals and the future reality.  

Comment

Representation ID: 4520

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Barnton Parish Council

I&O_4802

Comment

Representation ID: 4562

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4845
Little Leigh Parish Council generally supports the suggested policy re: mix and type etc. of housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 4838

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Heat Pumps and Engineering Directors' Pension Fund

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_5188
The suggested policy approach towards housing mix, type, and specialist housing is broadly supported as it recognises the need for diverse, inclusive communities that meet varied demographic and social requirements. However, flexibility should be embedded within the policy to respond to local market conditions and site-specific constraints. Provision for specialist housing should be carefully calibrated to ensure it meets demonstrated local need without imposing unrealistic percentage targets that could hinder delivery. The policy should also emphasise the integration of specialist housing within mainstream developments to promote social cohesion and accessibility. Given Cuddington’s demographic profile, with a considerable proportion of older residents and young families, the policy should encourage a mix that includes accessible, adaptable homes and affordable family housing alongside specialist housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 4960

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Norley Parish Council

I&O_5319
A local Housing Needs assessment for individual Settlememts should be encouraged and given priority over an assessment of mix and type of housing for a larger area by the County, when the local assessment has been completed to agreed guidelines and is no more than say 5 years old

Comment

Representation ID: 5353

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Sherlock

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_5723
The suggested policy approach towards housing mix, type, and specialist housing is broadly supported as it recognises the need for diverse, inclusive communities that meet varied demographic and social requirements. However, in the context of Mouldsworth, flexibility is particularly important given its rural nature and smaller scale. The policy should ensure that specialist housing provision is proportionate to demonstrated local need and integrated sensitively within the village fabric. This will support community cohesion and accessibility without overwhelming local infrastructure or altering the village’s character. Careful calibration of targets will help ensure deliverability and responsiveness to Mouldsworth’s specific housing demands.

Comment

Representation ID: 5510

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5882
I broadly agree that a clear housing mix policy is needed, but it must be based on local housing needs and not imposed at unrealistic levels. The policy should: Require developments to reflect evidence-based needs (including affordable family housing, homes for young people, and older residents). Prioritise smaller, energy-efficient homes to address affordability. Ensure specialist housing (extra care, disability-adapted, retirement) is delivered in locations with good access to services and public transport. Explicitly state that Green Belt land should not be considered for housing unless all brownfield and underused sites have been fully exhausted.

Comment

Representation ID: 6070

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andy McGovern

I&O_6459
I'd like to see more detail, CWaC's performance on CSB is shocking so I'd welcome anything that made this truly transparent and introduced accountability. Taking only your own Self Build register is not acceptable evidence, this is widely discussed nationally. CWaC have effectively buried the register, done the absolute bare minimum to make anyone aware of it's existence, continually miscounted demand and overstated delivery. This needs to stop and CWaC behave transparently in how they are going to support C&SB going forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 6173

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_6569
HO1 At the stage, I cannot support this since the Housing Needs Assessment remains "to be prepared".